Towards a Conceptual-Historical Critique of the Essentialist and Teleological Interpretations of Russian History. Part 2

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.