Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1916322
S. A. Stepanov
The Black Hundreds unions positioned themselves as committed champions and defenders of Russian Orthodoxy. The Black Hundreds’ ideology was based on the three-part formula of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationhood,” formulated by S.S. Uvarov and M.P. Pogodin during the reign of Nicholas I. The ideologues of the extreme right emphasized that the Russian people were tied by indestructible bonds to Orthodoxy—“the sole true, apostolic, and paternalistic church.” The monarchists conducted their processions under gonfalons, every branch had icons, and meetings and rallies began with prayers. Congresses of “Russians” were accompanied by ceremonial prayer services. The extreme rightists’ close ties to the Russian Orthodox Church were so obvious that Soviet historiography equated the Orthodox clergy with the Black Hundreds. Up to the end of the 1920s, a good number of articles and pamphlets were published about the ties between the Black Hundreds and the Church that had a sharply anticlerical tone. These works treated the Orthodox Church as a reactionary force that was the main pillar of the Black Hundreds movement. Paradoxically, the concept of total identification of the extreme right with the Orthodox clergy still exists today, but it has merely replaced a negative assessment with a solely positive one. Works published by the Institute of Russian Civilization present the “holy Black Hundreds,” consisting of zealots and martyrs who gave their lives for the Orthodox faith during the revolution and the Civil War. It would be wrong to suggest, however, that the entire Orthodox clergy during the prerevolutionary period supported the extreme right. By the same token, one cannot say that the extreme right relied solely on Orthodox clergymen. The Black Hundreds did not shun cooperation with other religions. The Union of the Russian People in its “Founding Principles,” a kind of symbol of faith, stated that “non-Orthodox and
{"title":"The Black Hundreds and the Russian Orthodox Clergy","authors":"S. A. Stepanov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916322","url":null,"abstract":"The Black Hundreds unions positioned themselves as committed champions and defenders of Russian Orthodoxy. The Black Hundreds’ ideology was based on the three-part formula of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationhood,” formulated by S.S. Uvarov and M.P. Pogodin during the reign of Nicholas I. The ideologues of the extreme right emphasized that the Russian people were tied by indestructible bonds to Orthodoxy—“the sole true, apostolic, and paternalistic church.” The monarchists conducted their processions under gonfalons, every branch had icons, and meetings and rallies began with prayers. Congresses of “Russians” were accompanied by ceremonial prayer services. The extreme rightists’ close ties to the Russian Orthodox Church were so obvious that Soviet historiography equated the Orthodox clergy with the Black Hundreds. Up to the end of the 1920s, a good number of articles and pamphlets were published about the ties between the Black Hundreds and the Church that had a sharply anticlerical tone. These works treated the Orthodox Church as a reactionary force that was the main pillar of the Black Hundreds movement. Paradoxically, the concept of total identification of the extreme right with the Orthodox clergy still exists today, but it has merely replaced a negative assessment with a solely positive one. Works published by the Institute of Russian Civilization present the “holy Black Hundreds,” consisting of zealots and martyrs who gave their lives for the Orthodox faith during the revolution and the Civil War. It would be wrong to suggest, however, that the entire Orthodox clergy during the prerevolutionary period supported the extreme right. By the same token, one cannot say that the extreme right relied solely on Orthodox clergymen. The Black Hundreds did not shun cooperation with other religions. The Union of the Russian People in its “Founding Principles,” a kind of symbol of faith, stated that “non-Orthodox and","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"124 - 136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44959731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1956271
J. Bradley
Two generations of Russian scholars and public intellectuals have established the importance of the study of the political right (a loose umbrella term covering the ideologies of conservatism, nationalism, monarchism, and the populist radical right), not only for its time and place, but also for its enduring resonance in Russian political culture. The recent scholarly study of the political right has been a mix of detached, balanced discovery of a piece of Russia’s political heritage and a sympathetic rehabilitation of ideas and personages long vilified or sent to scholarly oblivion. This issue of our journal features the work of contemporary Russian historians on the politics and ideology of the prerevolutionary political right. Coupled with our previous issue on Russian conservatism, the purpose of the present issue is to capture an important historiographical and political moment in the early 2000s in post-Soviet Russia. Initially, scholars and pundits alike focused on rediscovering political ideas and movements that had been denigrated or ignored for generations, thereby making the study of the political right “normal.” Beginning in the 1990s, when many political organizations and parties, as well as politicians, sprouted in post-Soviet Russia, important monographs on conservative organizations and political parties as well as biographies of leading figures of the political right deepened an understanding of the place of the right in Russian political and intellectual life and social movements. Along the way came several valuable collections of documents, republication of writings of the leading conservative ideologues, anthologies of sources, and useful reference works. Finally, making extensive use of local archives and the local press, regional research has given spatial specificity to right-wing movements. Beginning in roughly 2000, historians, political scientists, philosophers, and pundits built an infrastructure for the research and dissemination of conservative views consisting of centers, serial publications, and websites with varying degrees of activity and regularity, thereby expanding the reach of the study of the political right. Several websites combine nonacademic RUSSIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY 2021, VOL. 59, NOS. 1–2, 1–9 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1956271
两代俄罗斯学者和公共知识分子已经确立了研究政治权利(一个涵盖保守主义、民族主义、君主制和民粹主义激进权利等意识形态的宽泛的总称)的重要性，不仅因为它的时间和地点，而且因为它在俄罗斯政治文化中的持久共鸣。最近对政治权利的学术研究，既有对俄罗斯政治遗产的超然、平衡的发现，也有对长期被诋毁或被学术界遗忘的思想和人物的同情修复。本期我们杂志的特色是当代俄罗斯历史学家对革命前政治权利的政治和意识形态的研究。结合我们之前关于俄罗斯保守主义的问题，本期的目的是捕捉21世纪初后苏联时期俄罗斯一个重要的史学和政治时刻。最初，学者和权威人士都把重点放在重新发现几代人以来被诋毁或忽视的政治思想和运动上，从而使对政治权利的研究成为“常态”。从20世纪90年代开始，当许多政治组织和政党以及政治家在苏联解体后的俄罗斯萌芽时，关于保守组织和政党的重要专著以及政治右翼领袖人物的传记加深了对右翼在俄罗斯政治和思想生活以及社会运动中的地位的理解。在此过程中，他收集了一些有价值的文件，再版了主要保守派思想家的著作，资料选集和有用的参考著作。最后，通过广泛利用地方档案和地方新闻，区域研究为右翼运动赋予了空间特殊性。大约从2000年开始，历史学家、政治学家、哲学家和权威人士建立了一个研究和传播保守观点的基础设施，包括不同程度的活动和规律性的中心、系列出版物和网站，从而扩大了对政治权利的研究范围。一些网站结合了非学术的俄罗斯历史研究2021,VOL. 59, no .1 - 2,1 - 9 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1956271
{"title":"Rehabilitating the Political Right of Late Imperial Russia","authors":"J. Bradley","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1956271","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1956271","url":null,"abstract":"Two generations of Russian scholars and public intellectuals have established the importance of the study of the political right (a loose umbrella term covering the ideologies of conservatism, nationalism, monarchism, and the populist radical right), not only for its time and place, but also for its enduring resonance in Russian political culture. The recent scholarly study of the political right has been a mix of detached, balanced discovery of a piece of Russia’s political heritage and a sympathetic rehabilitation of ideas and personages long vilified or sent to scholarly oblivion. This issue of our journal features the work of contemporary Russian historians on the politics and ideology of the prerevolutionary political right. Coupled with our previous issue on Russian conservatism, the purpose of the present issue is to capture an important historiographical and political moment in the early 2000s in post-Soviet Russia. Initially, scholars and pundits alike focused on rediscovering political ideas and movements that had been denigrated or ignored for generations, thereby making the study of the political right “normal.” Beginning in the 1990s, when many political organizations and parties, as well as politicians, sprouted in post-Soviet Russia, important monographs on conservative organizations and political parties as well as biographies of leading figures of the political right deepened an understanding of the place of the right in Russian political and intellectual life and social movements. Along the way came several valuable collections of documents, republication of writings of the leading conservative ideologues, anthologies of sources, and useful reference works. Finally, making extensive use of local archives and the local press, regional research has given spatial specificity to right-wing movements. Beginning in roughly 2000, historians, political scientists, philosophers, and pundits built an infrastructure for the research and dissemination of conservative views consisting of centers, serial publications, and websites with varying degrees of activity and regularity, thereby expanding the reach of the study of the political right. Several websites combine nonacademic RUSSIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY 2021, VOL. 59, NOS. 1–2, 1–9 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1956271","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"1 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47409447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1916315
A. Ivanov
The current state of scholarly literature on the prerevolutionary Russian right-wing parties is highly impressive, expressing as it does a variety of viewpoints on that phenomenon in Russia’s political life. This topic, which was at one point virtually off limits and was for quite a long time thereafter treated simplistically and with bias, began in the 1990s to attract the close attention of scholars who by now have studied the most important story lines in the history of the rightist movement. Despite the persistent lacunae, contemporary historiography and the corpus of accessible sources do allow for a number of generalizations and narrower observations to be made on the subject. Rather than professing that the scope of this article could possibly encompass all the aspects of the topic set forth in the title, I will touch here on just a few features that in my view present the greatest interest.
{"title":"Russian Rightists in 1906 to 1916: Their Relations with the Power Structure and Society, and Their Prescriptions for Preserving the Monarchy","authors":"A. Ivanov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916315","url":null,"abstract":"The current state of scholarly literature on the prerevolutionary Russian right-wing parties is highly impressive, expressing as it does a variety of viewpoints on that phenomenon in Russia’s political life. This topic, which was at one point virtually off limits and was for quite a long time thereafter treated simplistically and with bias, began in the 1990s to attract the close attention of scholars who by now have studied the most important story lines in the history of the rightist movement. Despite the persistent lacunae, contemporary historiography and the corpus of accessible sources do allow for a number of generalizations and narrower observations to be made on the subject. Rather than professing that the scope of this article could possibly encompass all the aspects of the topic set forth in the title, I will touch here on just a few features that in my view present the greatest interest.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"33 - 62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48659182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1916324
S. A. Stepanov
In 1913 Russia widely and festively celebrated the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov. The monarchist or, as they were often called, the Black Hundreds unions played a major part in the festivities, which were held all around the country. The patriotic demonstrations instilled confidence in Nicholas II, confidence that the monarchy was unshakable. The tsar saw the Black Hundredists as true representatives of the great Russian people, who were prepared to wipe the small, pitiful band of seditionists off the face of the earth. Yet the monarchy had a mere four years of life left until February 1917. Why did the Black Hundredists, despite their assurances, fail to protect the monarchy? We should note that the Black Hundreds movement was never notable for its unity. The ideas of “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationhood” and “Russia for Russians” were supported by a multitude of discrete monarchist organizations. Strictly speaking, the Black Hundreds movement was a conglomerate of loosely interconnected unions, societies, leagues, and militia units. The largest of them were the Union of the Russian People and the Russian People’s Union of the Archangel Michael. In 1910–1912 the Union of the Russian People went through a painful schism into Dubrovinists (named for A.I. Dubrovin, the chairman of the Main Council of the Union of the Russian People) and the “Renovationists,” whose leader was N.E. Markov. The Dubrovinist wing won fame as political radicals who would reject even the most moderate concessions by the authorities and tended to operate by illegal, violent methods. In particular, they believed that the government consisted almost entirely of traitors who were pushing the country onto a constitutional path. The Dubrovinists were often called “revolutionaries on the right.” The Renovationist wing was willing to recognize a compromise on the basis of the June 3
{"title":"The Extreme Right and the Fall of the Autocracy in Russia","authors":"S. A. Stepanov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916324","url":null,"abstract":"In 1913 Russia widely and festively celebrated the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov. The monarchist or, as they were often called, the Black Hundreds unions played a major part in the festivities, which were held all around the country. The patriotic demonstrations instilled confidence in Nicholas II, confidence that the monarchy was unshakable. The tsar saw the Black Hundredists as true representatives of the great Russian people, who were prepared to wipe the small, pitiful band of seditionists off the face of the earth. Yet the monarchy had a mere four years of life left until February 1917. Why did the Black Hundredists, despite their assurances, fail to protect the monarchy? We should note that the Black Hundreds movement was never notable for its unity. The ideas of “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationhood” and “Russia for Russians” were supported by a multitude of discrete monarchist organizations. Strictly speaking, the Black Hundreds movement was a conglomerate of loosely interconnected unions, societies, leagues, and militia units. The largest of them were the Union of the Russian People and the Russian People’s Union of the Archangel Michael. In 1910–1912 the Union of the Russian People went through a painful schism into Dubrovinists (named for A.I. Dubrovin, the chairman of the Main Council of the Union of the Russian People) and the “Renovationists,” whose leader was N.E. Markov. The Dubrovinist wing won fame as political radicals who would reject even the most moderate concessions by the authorities and tended to operate by illegal, violent methods. In particular, they believed that the government consisted almost entirely of traitors who were pushing the country onto a constitutional path. The Dubrovinists were often called “revolutionaries on the right.” The Renovationist wing was willing to recognize a compromise on the basis of the June 3","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"145 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44687853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1916321
I. Omel’ianchuk
The views of Russian conservatives on the worker question and their attempts to resolve it have, to all intents and purposes, never been adequately covered by historians in this country. The writings of prerevolutionary historians on the rightist movement were frankly journalistic in nature, with the possible exception of works by D. Kol’tsov, V.O. Levitskii, N. Lukin, and P. Timofeev, which as contemporary scholar Dmitrii Viacheslavovich Karpukhin has observed, do show that members of the working class were involved in Black Hundred unions and organizations and also examine the ideological orientations of those institutions, focused as they were on drawing members of the proletariat into the ranks of the Black Hundreds. But the authors mentioned here also emphasized that the conservatives’ successes in that arena owed much to demagoguery, which targeted the benighted, undeveloped strata of the working population and the lumpen proletariat. By virtue of the ideological dogmas that weighed on them, Soviet historians all but ignored the problem of the workers’ involvement in the monarchist (Black Hundred) movement. Scholars in that period did, admittedly, look at the attempts of extreme rightists to bring the workers over to their side, but with the sole aim of proving their futility. Only Sergei Aleksandrovich Stepanov, in his study of the social composition of the Black Hundred unions and organizations, noted how active the proletariat was in them. The monarchists’ political practice on the worker question has been alluded to by contemporary Russian historians Sergei Stepanov and Andrei Mikhailovich Belov, while Aleksandr Vital’evich Repnikov has touched on their ideological constructs. Those constructs, however, have more often than not been viewed through the prism of Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov’s theoretical and ideological legacy. But despite the evident
{"title":"The Worker Question in the Ideology and Practice of Early Twentieth-Century Russian Conservatives","authors":"I. Omel’ianchuk","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916321","url":null,"abstract":"The views of Russian conservatives on the worker question and their attempts to resolve it have, to all intents and purposes, never been adequately covered by historians in this country. The writings of prerevolutionary historians on the rightist movement were frankly journalistic in nature, with the possible exception of works by D. Kol’tsov, V.O. Levitskii, N. Lukin, and P. Timofeev, which as contemporary scholar Dmitrii Viacheslavovich Karpukhin has observed, do show that members of the working class were involved in Black Hundred unions and organizations and also examine the ideological orientations of those institutions, focused as they were on drawing members of the proletariat into the ranks of the Black Hundreds. But the authors mentioned here also emphasized that the conservatives’ successes in that arena owed much to demagoguery, which targeted the benighted, undeveloped strata of the working population and the lumpen proletariat. By virtue of the ideological dogmas that weighed on them, Soviet historians all but ignored the problem of the workers’ involvement in the monarchist (Black Hundred) movement. Scholars in that period did, admittedly, look at the attempts of extreme rightists to bring the workers over to their side, but with the sole aim of proving their futility. Only Sergei Aleksandrovich Stepanov, in his study of the social composition of the Black Hundred unions and organizations, noted how active the proletariat was in them. The monarchists’ political practice on the worker question has been alluded to by contemporary Russian historians Sergei Stepanov and Andrei Mikhailovich Belov, while Aleksandr Vital’evich Repnikov has touched on their ideological constructs. Those constructs, however, have more often than not been viewed through the prism of Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov’s theoretical and ideological legacy. But despite the evident","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"100 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41801161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1916318
K. A. Solov’ev
One of the main tenets of the political theory of Neo-Slavophilism is an affirmation of the freedom of society from the grueling day-to-day routine of politics and, hence, from all the problems related to the allocation of authority and its duties. This human freedom is guaranteed by an autocrat who has taken the heavy burden of decision making upon himself. But by fleeing from politics, society risks ending up in its “hot embrace”: in any case, it needs guarantees against abuses by the authorities. This was a kind of intellectual challenge to NeoSlavophilism: proposing a mechanism of limitations on unlimited authority and setting boundaries for political space through the efforts of an apolitical society. And unlike the poetic mode of the founding fathers of Slavophilism, the style of thought of the Neo-Slavophiles suited the execution of this task quite well. Since it was “technological” to the maximum degree, their thought was focused on a detailed design of the future organization of authority.
{"title":"The Political Theory of Neo-Slavophilism: Politics Without Politicians","authors":"K. A. Solov’ev","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916318","url":null,"abstract":"One of the main tenets of the political theory of Neo-Slavophilism is an affirmation of the freedom of society from the grueling day-to-day routine of politics and, hence, from all the problems related to the allocation of authority and its duties. This human freedom is guaranteed by an autocrat who has taken the heavy burden of decision making upon himself. But by fleeing from politics, society risks ending up in its “hot embrace”: in any case, it needs guarantees against abuses by the authorities. This was a kind of intellectual challenge to NeoSlavophilism: proposing a mechanism of limitations on unlimited authority and setting boundaries for political space through the efforts of an apolitical society. And unlike the poetic mode of the founding fathers of Slavophilism, the style of thought of the Neo-Slavophiles suited the execution of this task quite well. Since it was “technological” to the maximum degree, their thought was focused on a detailed design of the future organization of authority.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"63 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46461121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2021.1932333
I. Narskii
This article was born out of an interest in two problems, each of which is worthy of a separate exploration. The first one is the aggressive anti-Semitism in the regions of the late Russian Empire outside the Pale of Jewish Settlement, which exploded in mass pogroms in October 1905. The second is the serious and reverential attitude toward imperial emblems and ecclesiastical symbols on the part of ultraconservative Russian patriots who coalesced during the First Russian Revolution into radical rightist associations. I was intrigued by the notion of combining the two problems by posing the following questions. What did antiSemitism signify in a region without Jews? How did the language of symbols and rituals of the “Black Hundreds” function? Were ethnic markers an instrument for constructing the concepts of “us” and “them,” or did ethnic categories obscure other social hierarchies and conflicts? To answer these questions, it seems reasonable to take the following steps: first, illustrate both problems in the case of the 1905 pogroms and the activities of the rightist monarchists in the Urals— one of the regions without Jews; then, secondly, try to interpret the Black Hundreds’ symbolization and ritualization in terms of the sociology of communications. The third step is to ascertain how signs and ritualized communications made it possible to lay down the boundaries between what was near and dear and what was hostile by using ethnonyms in a metonymic manner, as symbols of political and social processes and problems. The subsequent structure of the text is in keeping with the above steps.
{"title":"Was It Social Nationalism? The Language of Symbols and Rituals in the Branches of the Union of the Russian People in the Urals, 1905–1914 1","authors":"I. Narskii","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1932333","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1932333","url":null,"abstract":"This article was born out of an interest in two problems, each of which is worthy of a separate exploration. The first one is the aggressive anti-Semitism in the regions of the late Russian Empire outside the Pale of Jewish Settlement, which exploded in mass pogroms in October 1905. The second is the serious and reverential attitude toward imperial emblems and ecclesiastical symbols on the part of ultraconservative Russian patriots who coalesced during the First Russian Revolution into radical rightist associations. I was intrigued by the notion of combining the two problems by posing the following questions. What did antiSemitism signify in a region without Jews? How did the language of symbols and rituals of the “Black Hundreds” function? Were ethnic markers an instrument for constructing the concepts of “us” and “them,” or did ethnic categories obscure other social hierarchies and conflicts? To answer these questions, it seems reasonable to take the following steps: first, illustrate both problems in the case of the 1905 pogroms and the activities of the rightist monarchists in the Urals— one of the regions without Jews; then, secondly, try to interpret the Black Hundreds’ symbolization and ritualization in terms of the sociology of communications. The third step is to ascertain how signs and ritualized communications made it possible to lay down the boundaries between what was near and dear and what was hostile by using ethnonyms in a metonymic manner, as symbols of political and social processes and problems. The subsequent structure of the text is in keeping with the above steps.","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"137 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47689138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2019.1739500
D. B. Pavlov
{"title":"The Tribunal Phase of the Soviet Judicial System, 1917–1922","authors":"D. B. Pavlov","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2019.1739500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2019.1739500","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611983.2019.1739500","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48517996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2019.1755553
Sharon A Kowalsky
{"title":"Revolutionary Courts: Violence, Popular Justice, and the Creation of the Soviet Judicial System","authors":"Sharon A Kowalsky","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2019.1755553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2019.1755553","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611983.2019.1755553","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43695516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2019.1739496
V. Musaev
{"title":"The Judicial and Penitentiary System in the Fight against Crime","authors":"V. Musaev","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2019.1739496","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2019.1739496","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611983.2019.1739496","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49278454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：