Social Categories in Russian Imperial History

Abstract

In the 1968 edition of Social Theory and Social Structure, Robert K. Merton writes of middle-range sociological theories that they "consist of limited sets of assumptions from which specific hypotheses are logically derived and confirmed by empirical investigation […] The middle-range orientation involves the specification of ignorance. Rather than pretend to knowledge where it is in fact absent, it expressly recognizes what must still be learned in order to lay the foundation for still more knowledge. It does not assume to be equal to the task of providing theoretical solutions to all the urgent practical problems of the day but addresses itself to those problems that might now be clarified in the light of available knowledge." 1 Although Merton's statement refers to applied sociological research, the issue it highlights resonates with historians. In the effort to reconstruct past events, historians are by nature inclined to follow a middle way-a middle way between what current theoretical or intellectual fashion tells us we should want to know and what the documentary source base allows us to know. Michael Confino's essay on "the soslovie (estate) paradigm" leads readers to the sort of "middle-range" conclusion advocated by Merton. Reflecting upon roughly a century of social discourse and historiographic debate, Confino reminds historians of how difficult it can be to find the appropriate vocabulary for describing the social arrangements of old regime Russia. Like almost every historian of Russia, Confino thinks within the conceptual apparatus of European history. Working with the language of estate (état) and class, he traces the long-term development of Russian society with reference to Muscovite ranks (chiny), Petrine service estates (sosloviia or sostoianiia), and late imperial classes. This is to be expected, given that the established historiography is largely the product of how Russian elites, and consequently later generations of historians, understood these categories. But as Confino also makes clear, the categories and concepts derived from European

Representasi Kesenjangan Kelas Sosial dalam Film СЕРЕБРЯНЫЕ КОНЬКИ (SEREBRYANYE KONKI) ‘Sepatu Luncur Perak”

“…Hal yang melatarbelakangi diangkatnya adegan tersebut dikarenakan sepanjang periode kekaisaran Rusia, dinas militer Rusia memiliki peran yang penting dalam menentukan batas-batas sosial terhadap masyarakat (Wirtschafter, 2009). Dalam adegan tersebut, penggambaran sebuah pedang digunakan pengawal Alisa sebagai alat kekuasaan yang pada kenyataannya hanya dimiliki oleh pihak yang memiliki otoritas dan jabatan yang tinggi.…”

De soslovie aux associations volontaires : nouveaux modèles d’identités collectives à la fin de la Russie impériale

“…Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter, whose works are indispensable for studying the issue of social identity and social structures in Russia of the Old Regime, has assumed in her recent essay on social categories of Russian imperial history that "better solutions will be forthcoming" but has nonetheless chosen to place her analysis "within the existing historiography based on official and elite sources." 5 It seems, however, that what is needed is not better answers to the old questions but rather new approaches and new questions that can enable us to read available materials via new prisms, and to add to the corpus of our sources those documents that, although available, remain unused since they have been irrelevant to existing theoretical contexts. One such approach is a study of associational life in Imperial Russia.…”

“…For this purpose, however, it is necessary to focus on particular voluntary associations in order to inquire how people changed, invented and confirmed their identities via participation in voluntary activity, or, as Wirtschafter formulated it, how they "reconciled the idea of society with the reality of social experience." 14 The case of the Society of Zealots of Russian Historical Education…”