NZ is a Moscow-based interdisciplinary journal featuring the best Russian
and international experts from all sectors of the humanities, arts, and
social sciences. Its name is an acronym for a Russian term meaning something
between private stock, emergency ration and golden reserve, and as this
suggests, the magazine continuously takes stock of the latest developments
and disputes in the fields it covers. In its thematic sections, NZ makes
high-level specialists discuss their respective topics in a way that is both
sophisticated and accessible to an educated non-specialist public.
http://www.nz-online.ru/index.phtml?cid=5000150
1905: 100 YEARS OF OBLIVION
This special thematic issue of NZ marks the 100th anniversary of Russia’s
first nationwide political revolution. 1905 has been overshadowed by 1917
for as long as anyone can remember. Our task is to analyse why this Leninist
view of history has been dominant for so long, but we also want to offer a
fresh look at the events that gave birth to Russia’s first Constitution,
elected parliament, and legal party landscape.
The first section asks, One Hundred Years of What? Historians from three
different countries offer their responses. Maria Ferretti analyses The
Silence of Memory: Russia and the 1905 Revolution. She casts her glance over
the social and political context in the rural and backward, though rapidly
modernising, Russian Empire at the onset of the 20th century, then asks why
both major political camps in contemporary Russia -- the liberals and the
nationalists -- have chosen to forget 1905. Ferretti concludes by arguing
that both would be well-advised to pay more attention to that first
revolution. Alexander Shubin, in The First Russian Revolution in Historical
Context, compares 1905-7 with other revolutions in world history and argues
that it was an ‘intermediate’ revolution in that it did not divest the
ruling socio-economic group of its political power, although it did
challenge that group’s political authority. Abraham Ascher, the foremost
Western historian of 1905, entitles his article From Dress Rehearsal to
Contingency; From Social History to the History of Nationalism: The
Historiography of the Revolution of 1905, proposing a ‘broadly liberal’
interpretation that acknowledges the significance of 1905 in its own right.
Our second topic is 1905-2005: Back to the Future of Forward to the Past?
Vadim Damier reviews The 100th Anniversary of the Soviets and the
Contemporary Russian Left, retracing the history of the Soviets and
critically examining contemporary left-wing debates on Soviets as organising
principles. Jutta Scherrer finds A Revolution without Revolutionaries: 1905
in Contemporary School Textbooks. Through a detailed textual analysis of
passages about 1905 in a range of post-Soviet history books, she shows that
with the demise of the official Soviet interpretation, which made much of
1905 as a dress rehearsal for 1917, most textbook authors no longer find it
necessary to deal with the first revolution in any detail. The link between
the upheaval of 1905 and the formation of the Russian parties as well as the
first and second Dumas is obscured, and socialist figures are mostly left
out of the picture.
Topic 3 is entitled Between War and Constitution. Andrey Medushevsky
provides A Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Revolutions in 20th
Century Russia, meaning in particular 1905 and the crisis of 1993 which
resulted in the Yeltsin-era constitution still in force today. Michel
Tissier asks What Kind of Legal Education Do Russians Need? From
Popularising the Law to Popularising Civic Rights. He re-examines early
20th-century debates about Russians’ allegedly insufficient ‘legal
consciousness’ as well as attempts to overcome this insufficiency, and draws
parallels with contemporary debates. Timur Valetov writes about The ‘Workers’
Question’ and the Outcome of 1905. Valetov shows what the labour conflicts
of 1905 brought workers, entrepreneurs, and the state, and argues that the
first two groups were in many ways ahead of the state’s centralising and
interventionist view of labour relations. Finally, Igor Yermachenko, in On
the Road to Revolution: Russian Liberals in Front of the ‘Japanese Mirror’,
looks at negative and positive images of Japan during the Russian-Japanese
war of 1904-5 and shows how the confrontation with that rising Asian power
convinced many Russian liberals of the need to modernise the country -- by
revolutionary means if need be.
In Topic 4, two historians look at Universities under the Old and the New
Regime. Anatoly Ivanov writes about Russian Academics in the Mirror of the
First Russian Revolution. He dwells particularly on the role of academics in
the creation of Russia’s first underground liberal organisations and, later,
political parties. Special attention is also paid to the ‘Memorandum on the
Needs of Enlightenment’, better known as the ‘Memorandum of the 342’, a call
for sweeping educational reforms that was one of the most important
documents to come out of the semi-legal liberal ‘banquet campaign’ of late
1904 and early 1905. We also publish the text of that Memorandum. Alexander
Dmitriev, in The Burden of Autonomy (the Revolution, the Intelligentsia, and
Higher Education, 1905-2005), reflects upon the reasons why 1905 has not
become a rallying-point for contemporary academics. Dmitriev then asks why
this social group has failed to raise its voice forcefully in Russian
politics. His response is that Russian academia as it exists today is a
child of the Soviet era, and bureaucratic games and financial schemes are so
dominant that they leave very little room for innovation or the emergence of
a civic consciousness.
Yevgeny Saburov, in his Humane Economics column, compares two famous
literary responses to 1905: a legendary collection of articles entitled
Vekhi (Milestones) and Andrey Bely’s novel Peterburg. Saburov stresses the
quality of the political and economic analysis in the latter, which he
prefers to the former’s panic-stricken all-round criticism of the
intelligentsia. The lesson for contemporary Russia, in Saburov’s eyes, is
that sober investigation of social reality should take pride of place over
ideological battles.
The issue’s final thematic section is entitled The First Revolution in
Russia, to stress that 1905-7 was not an exclusively ethnic Russian affair.
Oleg Budnitsky writes about The Jews and the 1905 Revolution: Meeting the
People; Salavat Iskhakov looks at The First Russian Revolution and the
Muslims, and Konrad Zelinski discusses what happened at the Empire’s
westernmost fringe in Revolt or Revolution? 1905 in the Polish Kingdom.
Alexey Levinson, in his Sociological Notes, links the Awakening of Asia that
Lenin saw as one of the results of 1904-5 to the issue of terrorism as well
as this autumn’s youth revolt in France, which he interprets as parts of a
post-colonial backlash.
The Culture of Politics section features three texts about the hot French
autumn. Elena Filippova, in The Country of Unlearned Lessons, criticises the
racist interpretation of events in France that has been dominant in Russia.
Alain Blum and Silvia Serrano write a Reply to Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, a
well-known historian of Russia and Perpetual Secretary of the French
Academy, who recently gave a number of TV and press interviews in Russia in
which she accused France of a worse-than-Stalinist insistence on political
correctness and blamed the revolt on wide-spread polygamy among immigrants.
Finally, sociologist Hervé Le Bras, in a very short text entitled The Last
Uprising?, compares the recent revolt with previous insurrections in French
history (the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, and May 1968) and
concludes that the revolutionary drive is petering out and the poor are
rapidly losing their last means of expression.
As usual, we conclude with a Journals Review focusing on Russian periodicals
specialising in political and social issues, as well as a number of reviews
of recent Russian and English books on 1905 and a biography of Vyacheslav
Molotov, the USSR’s long-time foreign minister, written by his grandson.
The issue is illustrated with political caricatures from early 20th century
Russian and Armenian satirical papers.
From the Editors
1905: One hundred years of oblivion
Topic 1: One hundred years of what?
MARIA FERRETTI
The silence of memory: Russia and the 1905 revolution
ALEXANDER SHUBIN
The First Russian Revolution in Historical Context
ABRAHAM ASCHER
From dress rehearsal to contingency; from social history to the history of
nationalism: The historiography of the revolution of 1905
Topic 2: 1905 – 2005: Back to the future or forward to the past?
VADIM DAMIER
The 100th anniversary of the soviets and the contemporary Russian Left
JUTTA SCHERRER
A revolution without revolutionaries: 1905 in contemporary school textbooks
Topic 3: Between war and constitution
ANDREY MEDUSHEVSKY
A comparative analysis of constitutional revolutions in 20th century Russia
MICHEL TISSIER
What kind of legal education do Russians need? From popularising the law to
popularising civic rights
TIMUR VALETOV
The ‘workers’ question’ and the outcome of 1905
IGOR YERMACHENKO
On the road to revolution: Russian liberals in front of the ‘Japanese mirror’
Topic 4: Universities under the old and the new regime
ANATALY IVANOV
Russian academics in the mirror of the First Russian Revolution
The Memorandum of the 342
ALEXANDER DMITRIEV
The burden of autonomy (the revolution, the intelligentsia, and higher
education, 1905-2005)
Humane Economics. Yevgeny Saburov’ pages
After the lessons
Topic 5: The first revolution in Russia
OLEG BUDNITSKY
The Jews and the 1905 revolution: meeting the people
SALAVAT ISKHAKOV
The First Russian Revolution and the Muslims
KONRAD ZELINSKI
Revolt or Revolution? 1905 in the Polish Kingdom
Sociological Lyrics. Alexander Levinson’s pages
The Awakening of Asia
The culture of politics
ELENA FILIPPOVA
The country of unlearned lessons
ALAIN BLUM, SILVIA SERRANO
Reply to Hélène Carrère d’Encausse
HERVÉ LE BRAS
The last uprising?
Journals review
VIATCHESLAV MOROZOV
Review of Russian intellectual journals
New books
Reviews
|
