Social Identity in Imperial Russia 9781501757570

Citation preview

SOCIAl IDENTITY IN IMPERIAl RUSSIA

SOCIAL IDENTITY IN IMPERIAL RUSSIA EliSE KIMERliNG WIRTSCHAFTER

NORTHERN IlliNOIS UNIVERSITY PRESS DEKAlB

1997

©1997, 2015 by Northern lllinois University Press Published by the Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, Illinois 60115

1st printing in paperback, 2015

ISBN: 978-0-87580-728-7 (paperback : alk. paper) All Rights Reserved Design by Julia Fauci

Library of Congress Cataloging-inPublication Data Wirtschafter, Elise Kimerling. Social identity in imperial Russia I Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter. p.

em.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

(alk. paper)

1. Social classes-Russia. 2. Russia-Social conditions.

I. Title. HN530.Z9S646643 1997 305.5'0947-dc21 CIP

97-3293

TO GARY,

WHO GIVES PEACE OF MIND,

AND TO OUR CHilDREN,

ERIC, CARLA, AND VALERIE,

FOR THEIR SPIRIT AND ENTHUSIASM-

WITH lOVE

Preface

1x

CHAPTER ONE

CONTENTS

THE INSTITUTIONAl SETTING State and Empire Building Family and the Imperial Framework

3 4 9

CHAPTER TWO

"RUliNG" ClASSES AND SERVICE EliTES Landowning Nobility Civil and Military Servicemen Clergy Conclusion

21 22 37 49 60

CHAPTER THREE

MIDDlE GROUPS

The Professions and Intelligentsia

62 63 71 86

Toward a Definition of the Russian Middle

96

"People of Various Ranks" Commercial-Industrial Elites and Semi-Elites

CHAPTER FOUR

LABORING PEOPLE

Conclusion

100 101 130 140 161

CONClUSION Integration and Disintegration

163

Abbreviations Selected Bibliography

17 5 177 223

Index

255

Peasants Townspeople Workers

Notes

PREFACE

Inspired by the difficulty of conceptualizing imperial Russian society and by the rich results of the available archival research, this book addresses questions derived from my earlier studies of social categories-soldiers' children, common soldiers and noncommissioned officers, and the "people of various ranks" (raznochintsy). These groups, while enjoying limited privileges, occupied ambiguous outsider statuses within a social framework constantly redefined by an activist state. Attention to formal social categories in tum has led me to emphasize long-term patterns of development that can account for the Russian empire's ability to integrate multiple societies and cultures in an enduring, flexible, though ultimately fragile, polity. Having been trained at a time of widespread optimism about the "new social history," with its emphasis on measuring socioeconomic realities and writing "history from below," I first focused on the institutional and material parameters that defined the lives of common soldiers and their families. My effort to explore the connection between social structure and popular attitudes or mentalities quickly revealed that the historical record of the early nineteenthcentury soldier, who rarely expressed himself in writing, is in large measure a governmental one. Official sources say a great deal about how administrative practices and economic conditions affected lesser servicemen, but little or nothing about their innermost struggles, thoughts, and feelings. From the rewards and frustrations of the historian seeking to reconstruct the experiences of ordinary people, I moved into the history of social and political language (Begriffsgeschichte), which, like cultural history, draws attention to the beliefs and values embedded in textual representations. My exercise in Begriffsgeschichte revealed additional shortcomings in the documentary record. Meanings and definitions of social categories and the relationships these categories described were multiple even in a single context, suggesting that the relationships themselves were fluid and indeterminate. After focusing on the

X

PREFACE

ever-malleable designation raznochintsy, my research led me to a selective synthesis and interpretation of the highly diverse historiography of social categories in Russia. The result is a history of Orthodox Great Russian society in the period of the empire-or more precisely an extended essay, that explores the relationships between state building, large-scale social structures, and everyday life.

The work leading to this book was supported in part from funds provided by a Fellowship Grant from The National Council for Soviet and East European Research, under authority of a Title VIII Grant from the U.S. Department of State. Neither the Council nor the U.S. Government is responsible for its findings or contents. The writing of this book was also supported by the Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity Program of the California State University; by a Faculty Development Award from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; and by research funds from the History Department and College of Letters, Arts, and Social Sciences of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Previous research trips were supported in part by grants from the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), with funds provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the U.S. Information Agency, and the U.S. Department of State. None of these organizations is responsible for the views expressed. Lenia Veintraub and Katia Gerasimova provided crucial research assistance in Moscow, as did the officers and staff of the various libraries and archives where I have had the pleasure to work: in Moscow, the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA), the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), the Central State Historical Archive of the City of Moscow (TsGIAgM), the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RGVIA), the Russian State Library (RGB); and in St. Petersburg, the Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA). Closer to home, Sue Benney and her staff in Document Delivery at the California State Polytechnic University library worked tirelessly to locate research materials through interlibrary loan. The New York Public Library and the libraries of Columbia University provided pleasant working environments and access to invaluable sources. The editors at Northern Illinois University Press took great care with the typescript; at all stages in the production process, they exemplified efficiency, professionalism, and modesty. Without the assistance of these individuals and institutions, this book could not have been completed. I am grateful to Mary Lincoln and Bruce Lincoln for first urging me to write this book-to Mary for quietly determined editorial support and to Bruce for insisting that now was the time. Local colleagues have provided piecemeal readings and discussion. For their sustained collegiality, I thank Tony Brundage, Bob Edelman, Choi Chatterjee, Steve Englehart, Stephen Frank, Arch Getty, John Hatch, Lynn Mally, Georg Michels, and Hans Rogger. Other not so local colleagues-Ben Eklof, Dan Kaiser, Peter Pozefsky, and Christine

PREFACE

Worobec--