Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T00:24:10.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Citizenship and the Russian Nation during World War I: A Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

S. A. Smith
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Historians of late imperial Russia have been categorical in asserting that Russian peasants lacked any form of national identity. Scholars as diverse as Orlando Figes, Geoffrey Hosking, John Keep, Bruce Lincoln, Richard Pipes, Robert Service, Ronald Suny, and Allan Wildman have agreed that Russian peasants were too rooted in Gemeinschaft, too particularistic in their social identities, to be capable of identifying with the polity and territory of Russia. John Keep expresses the consensus concisely when he writes:

At the beginning of the twentieth century the Russian people lagged behind many others in the tsarist realm (Poles, Finns, even Baits and Ukrainians) in the development of a modern national consciousness. The social elite identified with the multinational empire; in the terminology of the day their thinking was rossiiskii rather than russkii. Ordinary folk either opted for a social class orientation or else had none at all, in that their horizons were limited to the local community. This helps to explain why Russia was defeated in World War One, why the Bolsheviks with their Utopian internationalist creed won mass support in 1917 and why the Whites failed to worst the Reds in the ensuing civil war.

Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , Summer 2000 , pp. 316 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2000

References

1. Figes, Orlando, A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 (London, 1996), 75 Google Scholar; Lincoln, W. Bruce, Passage through Armageddon: The Russians in War and Revolution, 1914-1918 (New York, 1986), 45–46 Google Scholar; Pipes, Richard, The Russian Revolution (New York, 1990), 203 Google Scholar; Service, Robert, A History of Twentieth-Century Russia (London, 1997), 10 Google Scholar; Suny, Ronald Grigor, The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR and the Successor States (Oxford, 1998), 32 Google Scholar; Wildman, Allan, The End of Russian Imperial Army (Princeton, 1980), 1:76–77.Google Scholar

2. Keep, John, The Last of the Empires (Oxford, 1996), 284.Google Scholar

3. Pipes, Russian Revolution, 203.

4. As Josh Sanborn points out, the claim that peasants lacked any sense of nationhood almost always comes from intellectuals, who fail to recognize any sense of nationhood other than their own. Yet if we accept that renditions of the nation are always plural, we can begin to investigate peasant notions without prejudice. In her account of peasants in Sierra de Puebla in Mexico, Florencia Mallon argues that “few nineteenth-century social groups, whether in Latin America or elsewhere” could be defined as possessing national identity if the nation is understood as “an already defined, integrated community with territory, language and accepted set of historical traditions.” She suggests that such aversion of the nation is that of the victors who seek to suppress the contests over citizenship and liberty that go on in the attempt to expand and make real the universal promises of nationalism and democracy. She shows how, beginning with the 1858-61 civil war and continuing through the French intervention, peasant guerrillas forged an alternative vision of the Mexican nation in which property rights were tempered by a commitment to solidarity and social justice while the status of citizen was tied to honorable actions rather than to birth, social class, or education. Mallon, Florencia E., Peasant and Nation: The Making of Postcolonial Mexico and Peru (Berkeley, 1995), 3, 9.Google Scholar

5. Smith, Anthony D., Nationalism and Modernism (London, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar; Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Re/lections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London, 1983)Google Scholar; Hobsbawm, E.J., Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge, Eng., 1990).Google Scholar

7. Seton-Watson, Hugh, Nations and States (London, 1977), 6–13 Google Scholar. For a vigorous defense of the premodern “nation,” see Hastings, Adrian, The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism (Cambridge, Eng., 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 14,46,47.

9. Ibid., 50-51.

10. Geoffrey Hosking recognizes the existence of “proto-national awareness” and discusses it in an illuminating fashion, but he, too, insists on a radical disjunction between this and modern national identity. Moreover, he emphasizes the dichotomy between two kinds of Russianness: russkii, which was connected with the people, the language, and preimperial principalities, and rossiiskii, which was associated with the territory, the multinational empire, the European great power. To my mind, the relationship between these two terms was at times closer than Hosking suggests—since rossiiskii could serve as a way of politicizing russkii. Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia: People and Empire, 1552-1917 (London, 1997), 210, xix.Google Scholar

11. Fedotov, G. P., The Russian Religious Mind, vol. 1, Kievan Christianity: Tlie Tenth to the Thirteenth Centuries (1946; reprint, Cambridge, Mass., 1966), 316 Google Scholar; Cherniavsky, M., “Russia,“ in Ranum, O., ed., National Consciousness, History and Political Culture in Early-Modern Europe (Baltimore, 1975), 118-43.Google Scholar

12. Pushkin, A. S., “Zametki po russkoi istorii XVIII veka,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 16 vols. (Moscow, 1949), 11:18.Google Scholar

13. Senchakova, L. T., Prigovory i naknzy rossiiskogo krest'ianstva, 1905-1907gg. (Moscow, 1994), 208.Google Scholar

14. Buganov, A. V., Russkaia istoriia v pamiati krest'ian XIX veka i natsional'noe samosoznanie (Moscow, 1992), 148-72.Google Scholar My view of national identity in Russia has been significantly shaped by this pathbreaking work, which is the first empirical study of what I call “protonational identity,” but which the author calls “national consciousness.” He concludes that there was a “relatively high level of national consciousness” among Russian peasants by the nineteenth century.

15. Kelly, Catriona, Petrushka: The Russian Carnival Puppet Theatre (Cambridge, Eng., 1990), 27–28.Google Scholar

16. Nekrylova, A. F., Russkie narodnye gorodskie prazdniki, uveseleniia izrelishcha (Leningrad, 1988), 116-25.Google Scholar

17. Engelgardt, Aleksandr Nikolaevich, Letters from the Country, 1872-1887, ed. and trans. Frierson, Cathy A. (New York, 1993), 135.Google Scholar

18. Brooks, Jeffrey, When Russia Learned to Read: Literacy and Popular Literatures, 1861- 1917 (Princeton, 1985), chap. 6.Google Scholar

19. Rieber, Alfred J., “Russian Imperialism: Popular, Emblematic, Ambiguous,” Russian Review 53 (July 1994): 333.Google Scholar

20. This is how I read the evidence put forward in the innovative piece by Yulia Mikhailova, “Images of Enemy and Self: Russian ‘Popular Prints’ of the Russo-Japanese War,” Acta SlavicaJaponica 16 (1998): 30-53. She shows how “traditional” elements, such as Ivan Krylov's fables, were mobilized in the discourse of national defense.

21. Ascher, Abraham, The Revolution of 1905, vol. 1, Russia in Disarray (Stanford, 1988), 267.Google Scholar

22. Senchakova, Prigovory, 109, 111-24.

23. Ascher, Abraham, The Revolution of J905, vol. 2, Authority Restored (Stanford, 1992), 5.Google Scholar

24. Even among the Cossacks, detachment from the ideal of service to the person of the tsar was perceptible, if only embryonically. Shane O'Rourke, “The Don Cossacks during the 1905 Revolution: The Revolt of Ust-Medvedevskaia Stanitsa,” Russian Review 57 (October 1998): 583-98. After 1905 advocates of military reform contrasted the “patriotism, enthusiasm and self-sacrifice of Japanese private soldiers” with their Russian counterparts and urged a militarization of the school curriculum. See William C. Fuller, Civil- Military Conflict in Imperial Russia, 1881-1914 (Princeton, 1985), 195, 198. For a general argument that military factors were as important as economic ones in promoting national integration, see Barry R. Posen, “Nationalism, the Mass Army and Military Power,” injohn L. Comaroff and Paul C. Stern, eds., Perspectives on Nationalism and War, International Studies in Global Change, vol. 7 (Luxembourg, 1995), 135-85.

25. Hosking, Russia, 376, 397.

26. Mark von Hagen, “The Russian Empire,” in Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen, eds., After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building: The Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman and HabsburgEmpires (Boulder, Colo., 1997), 58-72.

27. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 84.

28. Nairn, T., The Break-up of Britain (London, 1977), 340.Google Scholar

29. Mann, M., The Sources of Social Power (Cambridge, Eng., 1993), 2:215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. I stress that I am not arguing that national and class identities are mutually exclusive. There are plenty of historical examples where national and class identities have been mutually constitutive. In the democratic states of western Europe and the United States, for example, labor movements promoted the interests of their members largely through the political structures of the nation-state; see Vogler, Carolyn M., The Nation Stale: The Neglected Dimension of Class (Aldershot, 1985), xii.Google Scholar

31. Manning, Roberta T., “The Zemstvo and Politics, 1864-1914,” in Emmons, Terence and Vucinich, Wayne S., eds., The Zemstvo in Russia (Cambridge, Eng., 1982), 133-76.Google Scholar

32. Home, John, “Remobilizing for ‘Total War': France and Britain, 1917-18,” in Home, John, ed., State, Society and Mobilization in Europe during the First World War (Cambridge, Eng., 1997), 205.Google Scholar

33. For more examples, see I. Odinskii, “Iz dnevnika krest'ianina,” Ezhemesiachnyi zhurnal, February 1915, no. 2:130-32; S. Semenov, “Derevnia vo vremia voiny,” Ezhemesiachnyi zhurnal, March 1915, no. 3:63-74. This journal carried a regular “Diary from the Countryside” throughout the war.

34. Dnevnik Totemskogo krest'ianina A. A. Zamaraeva, 1906-22 gg. (Moscow, 1995), 138-39.

35. Jahn, Hubertus F., “Patriots or Proletarians? Russian Workers and the First World War,” in Zelnik, Reginald E., ed., Workers and Intelligentsia in Late Imperial Russia: Realities, Representations, Reflections (Berkeley, 1999), 330-47.Google Scholar

36. Moon, David, “Peasants into Russian Citizens? A Comparative Perspective,” Revolutionary Russia 9, no. 1 (June 1996): 43–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Struve, P. V., “Istoricheskii smysl russkoi revoliutsii i natsional'nye zadachi,” Izglubiny: Sbornik statei o russkoi revoliutsii (1918; reprint, Moscow, 1990), 235.Google Scholar

38. This theme is developed in S. Smit [S. A. Smith], “Klass, natsiia i obshchestvennaia politika v russkoi revoliutsii 1917 goda,” Vestnik Omskogo universiteta, 1996, no. 2:57-66.

39. Leonard V. Smith, “Remobilizing the Citizen-Soldier through the French Army Mutinies of 1917,” in Home, ed., State, Society and Mobilization, 144-59.

40. Breuilly, John, “Nation and Nationalism in Modern German History,” Historical Journal, no. 3 (1990): 659-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Hughes, Michael, Nationalism and Society: Germany, 1800-1945 (London, 1988)Google Scholar; Blackbourn, David, The Long Nineteenth Century: The Fontana History of Germany, 1780-1918 (London, 1997), 424 Google Scholar; Breuilly, John, “The National Idea in Modern German History,” in Fulbrook, Mary, ed., German History since 1800 (London, 1997), 569.Google Scholar

42. Hughes, Nationalism and Society, 14.

43. John Home, “Introduction: Mobilizing for ‘Total War,’ 1914-18,” in Home, ed., State, Society and Mobilization, 5.

44. Ibid., 16.

45. Breuilly, “National Idea,” 572.

46. Wilhelm Deist, ‘The German Army, the Authoritarian Nation-State and Total War,” in Home, ed., Stale, Society and Mobilization, 170.

47. Blackbourn, Long Nineteenth Century, 266; Breuilly, “National Idea,” 570.

48. Gatrell, Peter, “Poor Russia: Environment and Government in the Long-Run Economic History of Russia,” in Hosking, Geoffrey and Service, Robert, eds., Reinterpreting Russia (London, 1999), 89–106.Google Scholar

49. William G. Rosenberg, “The Zemstvo in 1917 and Its Fate under Bolshevik Rule,“ in Emmons and Vucinich, eds., Zemstvo in Russia, 415.