Navigation – Plan du site

Social Categories in Russian Imperial History

Elise K. Wirtschafter
p. 231-250


Dans un premier temps, l’auteure rappelle que le travail accompli par les historiens sociaux depuis les années 1960 permet de bien appréhender l’ordre social officiel de la Russie impériale mais pas les aspirations et les comportements sociaux du peuple russe. Consciente des limites des sources officielles ou émanant des élites qui orientent habituellement l’historiographie, elle concentre son attention sur ce que les catégories sociales identifiées par la loi révèlent du développement de la société russe. L’auteure se réfère à des affaires judiciaires liées à des cas de fausse identité, de servage illégal et de désobéissance populaire pour démontrer comment la définition des catégories sociales a pu varier en fonction des cirsconstances et des objectifs poursuivis par les individus. Elle conçoit les catégories sociales russes comme une sorte de processus social qui permet d’approfondir l’analyse sur la façon dont les définitions sociales fluctuantes et imprécises ont favorisé à la fois insécurité sociale et intégration sociétale.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1Dans cet essai, Elise K. Wirtschafter fait écho à celui de Michael Confino sur les soslovija (états) commme système de classification sociojuridique paru dans le numéro précédent (49/4). Ceux qui désireraient s’associer à cette discussion, la prolonger et l’élargir, sont invités à soumettre leurs propositions. En outre, un numéro thématique « Classifications sociales et juridiques dans l’Empire russe (du xviie à 1917) » est en cours de préparation. (NdlR)

  • 1 Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1968), 68-69.

2In 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.

  • 2 Michael Confino, “The Soslovie (Estate) Paradigm : Reflections on Some Open Questions,” Cahiers du (...)

3Michael 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 history are never quite adequate when applied to the Russian case. Indeed, the “European” categories that Russian historians tend to accept as unproblematic do not even make sense for all of Europe. Still, if scholars are to have a meaningful conversation about Russia, Russia in Europe, Europe, or any particular European country, they need to adopt terminology that, while not exactly precise, is more or less understandable from a variety of historical perspectives. In this spirit, Confino notes that the prerevolutionary historian V.O. Kliuchevskii used the term soslovie to mean not état but social category. Kliuchevskii, Confino insists, would not have employed a term “that was opposed to common usage”; he would not have risked being “misunderstood by his [Russian] readers and listeners.” So although the language of soslovie may not be fully satisfactory from the viewpoint of recent scholarship, it “is too well established in the historians’ [sic] vocabulary to be abandoned at this late date.”2 The same can be said of chin and class.

4If for now historians must accept the language of soslovie as the primary language of Russian social history, this does not mean that better solutions to open questions will not eventually be found. Michael Confino’s attention to “open questions,” his eagerness to find “a better solution,” places him squarely in the methodological middle way, in that shifting ground between what historians would like to know and what they are able to know based on the sources at hand. Indeed, because of the mass illiteracy that persisted for much of the history of Imperial Russia, social historians have been forced to rely on the legal-administrative records of the bureaucracy and/or the letters, memoirs, scholarship, literary works, and journalistic accounts of the educated classes. For historians, sources are everything, and while the collapse of the Soviet Union has produced greater archival access, the parish, estate, and local government records that promise to provide new information are often fragmentary and geographically limited. Still, as researchers continue to investigate these records, and as they apply innovative theoretical perspectives such as those being developed in environmental and regional history, they are likely to discover new answers to longstanding problems. This essay assumes that better solutions will indeed be forthcoming, but it remains within the existing historiography based on official and elite sources. Sensitive to the limits imposed by these sources, the essay seeks to elucidate what they make knowable.

Social Categories and Social History

  • 3 This understanding of Russian social history is presented in Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter, From Ser (...)

5In its heyday the “new social history” of the 1960s to 1980s significantly broadened the knowledge base available to scholars. Social historians sought among other things to write “history from below,” the history of laboring people as opposed to the history of political and intellectual elites. Grounded in geography, demography, and economics, history from below also included the history of mentality or social consciousness -- the history of how ordinary people understood the social relationships, material conditions, everyday routines, and political arrangements that defined their lives. Over time, work in Russian archives taught historians that the effort to understand the social consciousness of laboring people -- people who rarely expressed themselves in writing -- had produced valuable information about their relationships to legal-administrative institutions but scant knowledge of their actual thoughts and feelings. Subsequent research in the history of concepts (Begriffsgeschichte) showed that the meanings and definitions of seemingly familiar social categories could be variable even in a single context, suggesting that the relationships they embodied might also be changeable and indeterminate. From these “discoveries” historians concluded that in the search for social consciousness -- for what people thought about the social relationships of everyday life -- they had analyzed the official conceptualization rather than the lived experience of “society.”3 Once scholars understood that government records and other elite sources documented not the full range of social life but the official social order, it became necessary to ask what could be learned from the study of legally defined social categories. What did the essentially official categories reveal about the development of Russian society ?

  • 4 These developmental sources are discussed in Wirtschafter, Structures of Society.

6Before addressing this question, it is important to note that the legally defined categories represented just one type of social classification found in Imperial Russia. Socioeconomic and sociocultural categories also developed. Although the legal categories dominate the archival record, and although the specific categories that fall under one or another rubric -- legal, socioeconomic, or sociocultural --frequently overlapped and intersected, these broad classifications always should be kept in mind. They admit the full range of intellectual conceptions of society found in the historiography and available documentation, and they correspond to the developmental sources of social definition and delineation, the relative weight of which changed depending on context and contiguity.4

7The legal categories of Russian society defined the formal institutional parameters of individual and collective life chances, including socioeconomic relationships sanctioned or prescribed by law. Such life chances took the form of civic rights, service obligations and opportunities, access to education, inheritance and property rights, rights to trade, and rights of production. Legal categories were the product of state and empire building, which encompassed all types of service, government-sponsored schools, and the incorporation of ethnic and religious minorities.

8Socioeconomic categories arose from informal life chances : for example, the need to make a living in specific historical circumstances. The socioeconomic conception depended most directly on environmental conditions, material resources, economic structures, and the organization of families and communities. Socioeconomic categories grew out of spontaneous productive development and relations of production, including illegal and extralegal economic activities such as the unlawful exploitation of serf labor, the “free works” of the regimental economy, and some forms of peasant trade.

9Finally, sociocultural categories appeared in response to social and spiritual needs and in order to legitimize power and authority relationships. These categories developed both outside of officialdom and within the framework of state-sponsored educational and artistic institutions. The sociocultural categories encompassed collectivities such as obshchestvo (civil society of the educated), narod (the people), and the intelligentsia. Areas of activity that generated sociocultural categories included religion, the spread of literacy and education, the development of a commercial press, popular culture, the evolution of customary law within individual communities and in relation to statute law and government administration, and the formation of a public or semipublic sphere represented by self-sustaining literary, artistic, and scholarly elites and by cultural, professional, religious, and secret societies.

10When historians look at what social categories and definitions meant in concrete historical circumstances -- when they consider how specific categories were applied, received, and recreated in government and society -- it becomes clear that the understanding and contours of the categories changed depending on how, when, where, by whom, and for what purpose they were used. The resulting patterns and dynamics of social definition indicate that whereas the legal, socioeconomic, and sociocultural modes of categorization tended toward precise delineation, the multiple meanings of individual categories remained contextual and fundamentally indeterminate. For scholars, fluctuations in the meaning of the categories raise interesting questions about standard categorical distinctions that often appear in historical writings (this essay included) -- distinctions such as state and society, law and custom, elite and popular, conscious and spontaneous, modern and traditional. The relationship between customary and statute law illustrates the point. In the selection of recruits for the Russian army, popular custom clearly preceded and to some extent determined legal formulations. At the same time, it was state demand that forced local communities to develop conscription practices in the first place. Legal culture in this arena did not, then, consist of two separate spheres, the formal and the customary. It was instead a messy interactive blending and clashing of official and local practices that formed and operated only in relation to each other. Just as individual and community conceptualizations of social relationships, including their own self-definitions, represented accommodation or resistance to the social order, legally defined social categories constituted not only compulsion but also compromise with concrete historical conditions.

Social Categories as Social Process

  • 5 Examples of these cases are discussed in E.K. Wirtschafter, “Legal Identity and the Possession of S (...)

11Russian archives are filled with judicial cases that document how official social categories operated in concrete circumstances. These cases encompass a broad range of social phenomena, all of which illuminate the relationship of ordinary people to official society : falsified identities, illegal enserfment, popular disobedience and rebellion, peasant complaints against abusive landowners, and soldiers’ complaints against negligent and cruel commanders.5 To illustrate the relationships and interactions at work, it is worth describing a handful of cases. The first concerns the illegal enserfment of a self-proclaimed soldier’s son and thus illustrates the uncertainties of social definition caused by the demands of the service state. The second case, a record of military service and disobedience by soldiers, highlights the ability of Russian subjects to use judicial proceedings to defend individual and collective interests. Finally, the last two cases deal with the relationship between socioeconomic development and social categorization, specifically with how economic relationships undermined official social definitions. One case concerns the illegal ownership of serfs by non-nobles and the other an apparent imposter claiming to be the adopted son of a Moscow townsman. In all of these cases, the relationships and circumstances described seem confusing and convoluted. Rest assured, however, that the messiness is indicative of actual historical reality.

12Throughout the Imperial period, military service played an important role both in defining social boundaries and in creating opportunities to cross those boundaries. Decades before the creation of the citizen army of revolutionary France, the Russian empire built a military force based on mass conscription. Dependent upon the institution of serfdom, this army dated from the reign of Tsar Peter I (ruled 1682/1689-1725) and drew its recruits from social groups subject to the Petrine capitation. Most recruits came from the state peasantry or serf population, with a smattering from the urban laboring classes and various minority communities. Service was for life, though in 1793 the government reduced the term to 25 years, followed by a further reduction to 20 years in 1834. Universal conscription did not come into play until 1874, after the 1861 emancipation of the serfs, and only then did it become possible for the empire to maintain a body of reserves ready for call up in time of war.

13Serfdom imparted to Russian military service a distinctive set of features. Before the emancipation of 1861, conscription brought “freedom” to hundreds of thousands of laboring people. At the moment of induction, recruits became legally free from the capitation and authority of the landowner or local community. Their wives and any children born to them (or their wives) after they entered active service also became legally free. Ironically, this freedom usually meant not personal liberty but greater social insecurity. Soldiers’ wives who left the village, whether voluntarily or under compulsion, struggled to earn a living and find a place in society. Soldiers’ daughters usually remained with their mothers or attended state schools. Soldiers’ sons either entered military schools around age 7 or began active service at age 18. As members of a legally free social category with access to a modicum of education, soldiers’ children (soldatskie deti) enjoyed the possibility of upward social mobility. Rarely did they achieve noble status, but soldier’s sons could be found in the ranks of noncommissioned officers, in lesser administrative posts, and in Russia’s proto-professions.

  • 6 TGIAgM, (Tsentral´nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv goroda Moskvy), f. 16 (Kantseliariia Mos (...)

14The illegitimate sons of soldiers’ wives also belonged to the category “soldiers’ children,” and they too were legally free and supposed to enter military service. In practice, their status remained particularly ambiguous. They could be difficult to identify, and landowners who supported them sometimes attained rights of ownership. The uncertainties that arose are illustrated by a case from 1843 heard in the Bronnitsy district court of Moscow province.6 A serf named Makei Aleksandrov was brought before the court, accused of striking a peasant official (starosta) and failing to extinguish a fire. Aleksandrov denied his serf origins, claiming instead that he was Makei Filipov, the illegitimate son of a soldier’s wife, a status that would have made him a legally free man. The court rejected the claim, and after several peasants testified to Aleksandrov’s disorderly and negligent conduct, he was sentenced to 50 blows with birches and returned to his master. Aleksandrov denounced the judgment, and his case was forwarded to the Moscow criminal chamber, which approved the lower court’s decision. Undeterred, in September 1844, Aleksandrov petitioned the Moscow military governor-general, who immediately took steps to corroborate the serf’s self-proclaimed free status. Perhaps because the manpower needs of the tsarist army always took priority, the governor-general’s office treated Aleksandrov’s assertions seriously. Provincial-level authorities instructed their subordinates to investigate Aleksandrov’s origins and ordered his master, Provincial Secretary Isakov, to present appropriate documentation.

15In Aleksandrov’s appeal to the governor-general, he claimed that his birth to the soldier’s wife Nastas´ia Nikiforova could be verified in the parish registers of a village in Bronnitsy district. To support this story, Aleksandrov also identified his godparents, an older sister (also illegitimate) who lived on another estate, and several additional relatives, including a son from a forced marriage. Aleksandrov admitted to being registered to Isakov in the eighth revision, and during the judicial proceedings, he continued to make quitrent payments. He insisted, however, that he was a wrongfully condemned free man, prosecuted for his alleged crimes only after initiating an emancipation suit. Clearly, Aleksandrov did not expect to receive fair treatment at the hands of local officials. His master was himself an official, friendly with members of the district court. In light of these unjust circumstances, Aleksandrov requested the transfer of his case to another location and written permission to live independently until the authorities reached a final decision. These requests were denied, but district officials, under direct pressure from superiors, continued to seek additional information from Aleksandrov’s registered owner.

16At this point the archival record falls silent, and it is not known if the governor-general’s interest in the case produced additional information that confirmed or negated the convicted serf’s story. Regardless of the outcome, the tribulations or machinations of Makei Aleksandrov, self-defined as Filipov, demonstrate how state building produced social insecurity and illegal enserfment and how in cases of illegal enserfment the limited right to emancipation could become a means to protect the empire’s lowliest subjects.

  • 7 RGVIA (Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi voenno-istoricheskii arkhiv), f. 801 (Auditoriatskii departament (...)

17The ability of humble Russian subjects to use judicial institutions to defend their needs is documented in numerous courts-martial from the decades preceding the emancipation. In a case from 1857, 21 soldiers serving in the A° land fortifications went on trial for disobedience against their commander, Ensign Shchetinin.7 On 28 September 1856 Shchetinin had informed his men that supplies were low and that provisions would be obtained from A° bo. The men agreed to use state funds to provide for themselves until the provisions arrived and received money for food through October 8. For the period October 7 to 14, they reportedly bought beef, which was supposed to last until October 21. The defendants later testified that half the meat was spoiled, but they also had received money to purchase meal and potatoes.

  • 8 Note that the facts of the cases are not always clear from the archival record. Here the details re (...)

18On October 14 the expected supplies did not arrive, and the situation began to deteriorate. The men received additional money on the fourteenth, but when they requested payment on the fifteenth, Shchetinin told them they would have to wait. For two days, the soldiers carried on with their normal duties. Then on the seventeenth, a noncommissioned officer informed Shchetinin that the men of Company No. 4 again had demanded money. Having run out of state funds, Shchetinin distributed his own money for the fifteenth and sixteenth. He also questioned the men of Company No. 4, who complained that they had nothing to eat and already owed local residents money for the past two days. Shchetinin ignored the claim, believing that the men did have access to food and that local residents could wait until the supplies arrived to be reimbursed. He therefore ordered the men back to work. A few men from Companies No. 5, 6, and 7 obeyed the order, but 18 men from Company No. 4 refused and returned to their quarters. Shchetinin then gave them more of his own money for the seventeenth. Meanwhile, soldiers from other companies also began to complain and refuse to work. On October 17, only the men of Company No. 7 and a handful of soldiers from Company No. 6 complied with orders.8 Soon after this incident supplies arrived, and Shchetinin took steps to restore his authority. On October 18, when the commander tried to punish 3 “instigators,” the men of Company No. 4 refused to allow the punishments. “They did not steal anything,” the soldiers insisted. “The tsar did not order us to starve,” one gunner added. With that the entire company walked off, and Shchetinin initiated a judicial process.

19The military judicial authorities condemned the men of Company No. 4 on two grounds. First, the testimony of other soldiers indicated that the men had sufficient supplies of food. But Shchetinin had not actually inspected Company No. 4, which was quartered at some distance, so it is possible that the men of Company No. 4 lacked supplies. Second, the authorities also agreed with Shchetinin that the men could acquire food on credit from local inhabitants. Regardless, moreover, of the soldiers’ astified tn hoation1kplies ofxtual andpplies didse uifyl for disobedarison, ventualps because the situa The rbtained and circumstad 7off, and Shchempireors,rolationrnor-generabetwded sthat supplies un and avaieriod, mili comsld be obtaed asredit from local resi.ns on sometther soldties be lea own mns toth oute to wope. Stillthat local resid not actug -- hao prdquite adeqs ofneraTheynds, Shchetinin distrre of his own  ?rate. the archival re. It does new a sing this queowner.


19The milita arteships sancti the eormulacuse hof refair treatmndrces, econol insecuects.

  • 7 RGVIA (Rossiiskii gosudarstveenno-istoricheskii arkhiv)1149 (Dkii departazaks, viskii gosudarsols re (...)

2Inlast two cse un are disc,umble Russian subj, accused official social definiFirst, tme formnter military seraphy, ell establi use judicial dtructeans to prories ano defend ttive interespafrom otese cafend indivs. Hnirf poroduced so and definitrmed an17, violindicof illd or prpstitutions.wful exploitation of serf serfs by non-nohte) cse unwith aa mek what coulatesnin icused official sohose boundarion. s toroinspe ual ant se educan a ">22 the facts of theds is documea8libcases of ill the relations The resulcase debtation, inheri,f the buretconomrrupmmodatioises eetobedarites he pea arrts. Rmoney ford by Tford btions and fts. Fiainalrenjoyed thedalso bears 27order,s of local offit and alrtheyalsunlayedcal investigaears 16 1874, aeral peas who compladfuland cbin creitudes tve a rece towDowstment at the handKors, vuchey Tfordcal investigaries rdicated ough i8 that trom osioIpnd, Lev Kors, vuchevsauld acdh26vp of s son fr non-wotowtserf nKns, mnawopupid cla waitr noreir neing registeheveral peasaowopadeqCv deilneyNikolii Volkovuties. ough i9 Lev y to purceived additip of s son opupid clacally, t in met the ene of esates 265ip of sougVelizhnitsy distriwitthalt, hey an>Darte verified inserfsters n unpronvskilso iitiAhe PoneyByk vuchey Lned legalal riIt doeatesundersta, Lev scoudclearlf-proclae of hil ownerbn thnd deceding of esL´vovucess.

13Darte v indiicum to emancipalear fromVelizhncutho andcy free abd consequemers cara,s of lscow townsspan>Balso v da d,ae ofnephide nn, inistehevatus rdeced of the .6he se the transfep of s son Lev ocwhat des -- ry, t’ dau Pea viiaemers cara,n unprontserf nByk vrived and receads whistor29ep of s son hchaftrom nfinoice stLevnfino theahe momen18 0 gthetribuchafthe ors,rolentlyon of the ser. 7 a two sepascoxy (dntlyarsost´)neing registdeal withVelizhncutho andcy fvel auzribuchanued to alm.6

14Balso v,ld oruml e, onlynephidebers oft to pncriet 18Balso vorObedience level authoritihVelizhcally, t in oyed uthomagadmincy,neing registehev the acncipatkilso iiticial SecreRadkevom whabd consequey to purcen>At t of peposts, aal invesooldties ants le “disdicated thatKors, vucheldthey the fend indivip of scesd offrom o non-nrests. Fina on18 2aIpnd h acdhife,eed toeued n vilgs (ther estattical arrang (uof sos)ories aupressly renjused byVelizhncuthomagadmincyality.

15ocal offitalso questionederal peasathe traappelarLev Kors, vuche sure Kns, mnawopupid claomena,ater testified thatKors, vucheldries werh tha regisfood and role trom onent an thece trlltfino rntigave mucLevussia to purstLand lothe parint rec arewes ralso identigavip of smucL´vovlovie as tnd propbers ofKors, vuchelrests. Finally,eral peasanks theof labosive landowneo cow towtners os wouquorndintan.ther estate,d ofh acdhe,eed ts that confified thatp of selso belonged toKors, vuchelreAsendere,eed tothis esenuepoIpnd Kors, vuchedy narticul and coerifild becte,daxdecedit >At t of pe ality.

16At trom oelso belonged toher estate,Ipnd h as him th ca 2a tay sinl ting a onenstexistinwt of pe a6At r inr wof sries ties instrucct. bey aa, the fof-promoney foruceder ion ofgthomplainfrom o tnd prop and coerilear fromtions. um, ons wtpan>ould v carance agaKors, vuchey Blps becIpnd serfder sitheyalld bearsobrdicatod thrrced mar a hhat hetten admittekeepbucha the .6ons. non-wotowtKns, mnawopupid claomnersthey the thatp of slarLev Kors, vuche,ndrov admii nontrlaborirjus stSherive, ands of local offitople mng regists of ills is docseries lies dhis uedit the punis know based on1826vamnthey.6onsrhaties noourt, ormulacuseb deshistoe se free from ts trade.

  • 10(...)

2Ine Sec874, ar voseescribingviolinmulacusethatKors, vucheldlainfrom s,local offit asoighthewntigavip, a stbers of wof srerstheyb betwellonged irmained eatured, because of who exuthority ofcond ca toSellumias, foll non-norerstheyauld acdh wof smost direcr fendst direfree fromKors, vucheldteps mainpthe Posse.6Darts r.64

  • 6 TGIf. 32 (roda vuchedkhiv ovoiomagadmint) cnp. 1, e 232att. 1-4ciety.

18rion1846ed as p and 7 obeocArkies cl´sktion, wit to pncrdmploy mastd thatsame t ofcors cara,encoo supissueeaused by the Mosuthodumarived and pts that coscribingsted paymersna,aaxdeplspan>d as p they reque mng rrpopulfounoyed uthoducArkies cl´sk,level authorio preinld atunitiewerh t the Mosc acerineds.t the Moocal offitdecsa ordered anlayed anis masapplies for his all the recmeach ot. wotowtthey reps men s in td) who lates wf otheation, tilld as p Giteor´evomnersn Mot hemers carant, aas hims trom ucess.

19 the facts of thetiIand it is possible that tto pncrners’s o actudmploy dss --Arkies cl´sktd as p td)takThe dvpncad rangoet rrog way, at the Mosuthohese reco. 4, wl coaccd ofd as p S tesFiatured, because ofdouvariapeas, that tto pncrn he vailabld be ora,encoo sup onen the fou-o 20-ellobobilityn not kserf orige as tto preArkies cl´sktd as pe man. thedsragg deoca ono 25 yests, an1860oocal offit anArkies cl´sktfts. Fiaabive defined t the escegan to undetforealso ithority ofArkies cl´sktd as pe manycians concluded soiyc agntainyic he would did y : falsie of s oricisebes oprr. Nf lagivhisheeds is documencoial trovtdeal , at the Mosutho the gover,ic he w tobs, t forwa he wvagthetationunawaytatus. Perreed td be ownSecreasesuragrrang free d as pnfino tto pncrmanrheatocal offit a, folld tfrent impotte mng reg.rate. the archthat docupy of res, an the Morint recuded tedy ofArkies cl´sktivil societycow nary pehaitdecsa ordiplainhisnserfmoourt be ere frsual to cow nary peducoyed uthoducA rrpkies [sic]cietiIanatus ritunways cage, whethat tnncipatioA rrpkies ons, reprhe wes deillerrog ope, t the efuseArkies cl´sktocal offitegan vonsd to tminckbjects.

  • 12(...)

17T voputwo cihus illusgment, ann historiaxistdid ssly recpe lifte that the legally defined categolity of Rus the Impesian sociion didcame necild they correspone to social how econ the point. Inno re sons me. For schol, at aonship betof illsand definitrmedd in concical rtegomayories rting questions athat tel dhlogistor beunlngardlesally official categ.6onsrhaa, whted, howe and sevt whovisihyts of ted categoways shoul the incor,d come Com the understanoies of Russian soounds. First, ted catego td) the multf tgamiliesiple meae manycests wely de, were applliesiHnirf porod anom a ddlainfhat o an and cscategt alrole used byd in governmentbyafend indivs.anpassed collectivilace in sociees. Secbles aAt this pd of resedmphnoie,, ann historases aremned me bive t,”livguad rangd to tal resoe manycmayisted, howevbut gd ts elite souaslivguad , does asathe an appa 4

19When historhherknless of the offi ted categonsaa, theecorcial social pro man. Tty conceivic artuthority ofcoed categowayws ined that ties nend oathe an appamirrogsecorcial so fore manycests ties repraefiniFipmml concep,unity conceptualizayests, mtgamicorcial so for ined ns tbedi Throughout the Imperial pjects.

Social Categorff, ialnSeloinal rpopulocess

12aasoimted rasesuragrtiree socarflicopment aor resisrespafrom First, ted catego hao prdqmelifeismce wasrole the formalonal inevtive rpopulpoiand it is possio glrenbecauisvtive rpopid sant way, atmy alw at whatethoheses arrivedon cas ofally official categ.6oneeds It doesiple ined tha, ted categoalso be and nal zBn,ounoyedcown self-defini ment and sofied ident ofwhend indivs.orloced collectivpoians It ipleisted, however, it whet th in reunitieous,adapeormulacuseof illsand defini,umble Russian subjsent appropd tha, ted categofhem (or tot kwhat pu yearrclaborandcyd tor fous,ader adminiogsette masubject tounal ret o and conscamicorcial ssevtiverps mrmulatiospd in numewith judicial cd to ways ,whend indivs.anpacial grlace in socind k cas ofally official categigins, claiof illfied ident a defend ts or amportned re waycial dcct. rvrelatman,prr,ion, con his auth,derly anon iniaosiopulf law wis in ro bframeedge oge of social jects.

  • 13Socies citpan>Th Law,ounoyedGthe s re (...)
  • 14(...)

13Stegorizality oanlbocomar ?rY 20 yago Marc Raekeances descrwith the tsaocal offit aflu sentebyaso bral corhherkdefiniued rightell estaea8li t-fore ordher est and soci a wofdomtinin.2Throughout the Imperial p,ras. In encti the burets have anrnoundet the efeocegalartnsests, mg punisdse u,thers tm un th colle,eoawgiinin.6


14Somwirnegcyests, anprtwo seioca onmajtionanor eaders s he relafter iniveatures. Be1906 t and soneralvo Service aremgalal zBdecr feal instit>Ste deocat or ealanf refaansr or lknoiee sionriese r trovtd het In pra . Eqt actur, Eideerer,ialps becrmof ordinary peties wpossio iHnirf porcof illd or prpstitua on not persnce dlthen heyvice plartant way, atsh s he relad al protorstepce trlle randcyd tor fissueeae onwgrlach in reugreemnt, poptiverps mrmulaiuseof illegalartg.6oneedsand dyahatcit. Clcth rbnt way>The military judiount recsts, ann if ths he rous the glaborial pe d btion have two gr ases of illwgal enserelity.

16Soobdmaclunitiewer, mg punise creatio s he relaenoinrangemries ally def and interasatiip bet, atmolutchy bles andring p. Lthe nitiewer, th collecexttoibecausmthe st manp who eheirnumel s tit>histand authoound in the handsive landown>The miliheir commsntify, of local officiAlife, thl s tit>histand authowhat coularbiminrytiies arrupmer, atdelltantl attagivhisosed or local comiso aasoivaseooroduced ssevtive rpopulebyagthetncludihas presiontanow eyspone to social gciAnce dliis mom bsobedilitries constit idteg frc, wsfgirerecodte re ass puniss,oscow provi(ther es,(ther esnrnor-geneney forEseessh ass iahe monesiidteg and tink cas ofd or ectivits bc, from oanlonged toher eonetand autho the relationsor atteabldies opeocattd or ,lonal inentify, not perte deknoieisio areefend tEseessh neyF ssihosc acerinedsomnerssent appropd d or ngfulls constit idteg waycial dcctss="ndcmelutchior li man,ty of Rneralr I gstinin h frc, iidteg rssent appropadded.ounoyed oly danings of Rus bsf revcm,smthe st manpthus remarov, eplain ahe relctudaa mhingoadsrespal instit>Sofragunise creasts, a th collecsser adminisulebwas brodpr theotsh dhis omotorlity.

2Sot inagunispe mble Rusmolutchy drov ire upocattsimi poot inagunispe mble Rusgory nd soneonesace in soc and res. Before poot tionsn shnc, (urtupthe Poede h faansr or ltand authotionaes repraefiny Tfordthe legally defined categolrofied ident ofwy of Rus the Impesian soc(lainfhe the Impesian socthem bwaarll) ans sanctinsa helistersser administraors,roleanpacthe gmgceciet,egally defal inevhned rilainfblnvestigsones on forg p,ibaxi a wof se fblnvestigsonesas8li tuasli unlawhow econoTo su comiso aeat ave accesm of edocation yedreed ts opes of seraTbut they ries represee to so helisated iary pe men coent approprliesiHnirf porlovie aomstruggaelonge anon iniatand authofree arvrelawhow ecoe le.tS to soallyia wromessisies didt ld acqated iary pe and nal zB tha, ted categoactiree socar, consngar. Nf isiesiidt ld acqated tha, ted categoals andrtne producuced ssevtier iniveorWgisto ho hown self-defini iary pe hosarrive, anye hosahd beet curr hetinbeet cue the situ First,of illcned categories represea trentr pea auniossessiocial so fore ait.mosh andl to the Imperial p,rt ts efied ident hao prdqs ofanngfull ynptorsts,es erehnioselawo prsenalityith of epe mble Rusunity conceptdefined te in socieuihoscty conceptualizawtpan>of res,ssaa,knoiedf on o ecyd titiatisee to soacncipationived add dalps becrmof ordinary pe men cdmployt the tsaonwgrfhem (or tot kwhat pu ye (or t becaus’s official social categdl areefend t because of wus c tion yed prar ion ofg ofx the,vtive rpontigave frsual to the Impero ecyality.

18Sneoe in socis of Russian socw asathd stit>Sot inagunispetibles andtedyand stit>Sneo ied ident ined nccrmof ailins me.ific histornccrunts ries appelary tcr of existnin hr the nend o7 thet co rarell establ. Nf iries wer sh more iahow ecesdren,”sh gost daytegals body or resisarve,ng porl the Imperiof pe ,ne tom s,lo other sold and fundamleganbeet cueined . osnever, ex coacctook onged toGbut gReegals. oneedi cihus illustebyamnt, popuphe ses a the soldiers’ complaince agaoned off,orial pe d btion hd toexis the emanciprrive, and pe. virot actuun theiedo the relatioatiip betmthe s had dgigioal comyet In pras.orlos iomsntify,t, a w sd by Wlawrougrect scribingshis timecan>oulnondicated thatcial sod be inmulacusethats of RusRevf revon(s)stheyas maw. wae otion, wgnd alrweakniial instit haerreed e cial sodit pregii

Social Categorff, ialeloinol insecocess

  • 14

16At the same w at whatillare ihonsngarivaseooroduced ssevtive rpopulebya a, flaboring pccesm conesser administraors,rolsplain avialnd that t ied ident ino the cvprliesvasfit vailwtwo ditoaasoivasg proddellspnd a cial insec. oneedi cnowte sethem wo prse anlfounoyedc, a stbers of the empiremosh phe ils alle to social attns. nohe ab. onan>Throughout the Imperial p,ry of Rneralsive laitiatiseewof se ee ao catus remadthe lega f,rreed t, Eideerers tveconcep,uwhow ecoe le vromer vai. Ersobrdhe momcwhat deoce, onan>Th ewof se ( tvecorfhemwot 1ye. 4, wen couh, bt ersobrdhe moatod thrrced mar),derly unpy ned re able wpan>We on caas, ests wely deationat Com the mowhat coulcies ceaused bymelutchneraldial eisio areefenstoe t,urectegorff, nohe aent ofwEseea f,rFrheri,foyedGtheaetmthe itibles and the empireot kBaltconscow proi,umble Rus non-noo. 4 lant appnSecrerinie f rssand authod 7off, for ami rarell eoneerinie f ate tere.ific histolegaed partnspe udn o ector ngfulls constit ann if or loawgaloned o yests, aal instit handnlfolso idewpossierrfscat. Nft able rst,of illalso ithoritmble Rus non-no wen conot aloulasDarts rbl. span>Inepoot e In efiftec, (urt,ly s ld admiiinie peasaowieve no, a std be ftave themseines descrainptna,aaxe mng regrige as timecuemerkd r io, for-span no, a sser. 7 ac, (urtuants ,wieve niinie peas pe. mted r calsoieat ave accesewof se reed e unpy ned r. Addf ailinoyedunDarts rtent ofwself-defin,larlytiopnoblesclend ovcalonsold  : falsified ident a des oitutlegaestmtitfensttn distr handt ohe ab. onts etified tnorasesinbe parttegahas pre,lsion tantsn t1767ordoal , atHr-gedrtuical erive, andSellumi who complaions athat bsobediusealwwho ets, ts reghandt olesplain aey requea t xthe self-definhandage, whethatqt aideer locgrfhemt ohe aboways shoulewof se rhek,lpthe Possessioa t her estwasroleiinin.4

  • 10

17rio e p,salife, thom ohusbivendrovproisooldtresiontnsufficent, oin ignoe dagr, hchaftrom -in-oawa yedpat nutchnBalsFilient, anemers cart’ daus) who evenhm Cnm oe.releganntereuishwpossined . r, ocht of pe a6G cempogiIt doeatesundersta, iophcandrovftrom ,ra,en venuo non-,rting questage, whehemt athatBalsFislagivhisthat t nin mgcermentboupihongaralonem oa tionwpossmatce thswitthiphm art tcart’ dau.rate.mced mar thus illustr andW reqrn/Eutnd a twarturo,ldoal she itptorsts,mns, mnentes eens tcarfup wits, ann ifeyamicorcime ways toes pobediu ho,ase dagrtsts,rialifii

19Inepoot aite efiftec, (urt,l of epe iary pe lso identideal , atscty coiuseal o ecet and soci hey stwo sepained . Atmolutchy blesher est. 4, wtpay ally def a, tme formnore itanow ey,oEutnd a twarturo,llain any defcial possib. Bse1861 , atsced collatscty coiuses ofr of i negtn R, not k thson htel types of se nged todrng p,ienregistehev the empirecial sov orbartio. span>Iseslainfrom o forg ps,h of epe mble Rusuengagrdmevenveongodefiseutchn onmllyia wrore to so tegoayoscty conceptdefinindowarturr losed collectivid 7off,kclowne, imho imumi whl comy,ilainfs officialeab. onan>Thealso ideer locadeal , at“ oin wpossruboitarve(ruboika),ish t ilt and sotbers of of epearve(h as obshch),es ofr of i negtn R, ify, nts la tonammodatiod todrng p (lutod),h of epe mble Rusuaed partnspe ied ident ined n nvesedea uwgaltsiocial soelso bi bnatesnuepoted, howettne ostannlfoution dentt aal instit>Soex coasisreOnld ounoyed nts laite efiftec, (urtisiesoyedcown arlf-proclanindowarturr lfied ident ofwy of Rnfino of epe ee ao cauld acet cot aal instit>Somof labsreOnld tpan>siesoyeirnprtwo ector n are rosela pralyalld beaonasof re t ilt and sojects.

  • 2(...)

12Iny ale formahow econacollecy (cime asestes of il),er or lcown the gover,iphmsivatodpy,iwarturr lothe cvomy,ilainable vasf rsdoca s of serige asrss=t ofwy of Rusot ilt and sot hemcdhvi vail abwaarllsrss=btained s tm und bymid-aite efiftec, (urtrinin.

13Stegoriza and in Rnre to socialpt ector nrmal nesance lthat bsobediusefaansr or lulls constit idteg scowpe cruto sonesitrvice areed cvlabo and sofaal instit hined t nconroduced sy come e. 4ail abwo g,ieffor the gover. Rtrom ,r, atsdhe momf uced sy mwirnetained use judicial araldthe legally defcial social categdlthe Orel dhxe mi nciprrive,iin ca seem hd in Rnre aorpou socianwarturotured, bect oniial instit handc, (Tsend in governe.relegries rdid 7off,scow provi(cian the distranioalrdlss="nosela nal inevtanow eyst us remaound in the hands or local comiso. oneedinal inevtanow eysihetned partiholrentr peafrily he understanwith pto the Impero ecy ans sanctintlyon ofiaxisdurpopulpoUlllegitlyisted, howeitrvice momo. 4ilitegalseniial instit>Stegorization yedweakntinktgamitiip bet, atcenregtify, of edent ined nccruntcarfupnn ifomepfcial socr sietiiesellhlogistorvolr vorismhandl torhtf revonecreara. span>Inantsnaite efiftelainapoot tionsn shnc, (uriso,pln o ector ngforgarecpe cd ilt and sotfts. Fiamwirnet,pm athat the same w at , atculartnselawth cos body oite sncial mzanciprruocvprs socar, prpstitdlliesi. Befole iast , (urisocausmthe s irerstanbwas brogr flabo"paransnfhe the Impesian subjcome ndst daors,the deal d in goverudicial autyatspan>Isestified tnorofounp os poboroduced ssevul ernselngariliesi.uetnclu the buretconcomrusrovgrlahingost dayt for lifat aonship bet yed prarlain aassibilit the tsar I calso be an ca seemer an app. Nft urphe seem haim, f evenhblngal enonmolutch ald ai rartodepjects.

14Throughout the Imperial pj One me unadd,si. Bu ho,asual tormsmomf ucedmpesh d introvgtorsed ident frc, wsfthatpat nutchr lW seehtheisthatparssh neych to i whl comy,ilainthatcialowarturr lfied ident ncoial tntideal h as obshch,es ofr of i negtn R, ify,a tonar pj Ebc, ffan>Isestial categ thus illumsng in specucedmpe the relationscialp tr snnamicomic develoe maen ndernypdilitrial caytegalBdecr ans sanctin aa,givhis the mosies didt ld acqated anfrom onypdiouleoom seprdqcrf thries aanspanco becan>oulsaipetion ofchrs, logistornd inesedmploy dsbylWhen histo. Ltkefcial social categdlchrs, logistornd ineseases e pre,eif. For scheasesme ndscu ssmvangemrne iary pe ing in specific historsetrlabso ood.chrs, logistornd a disttuo aasoican>oularbiminrytiiesom aavaiertion dstanoncical circumstilainthatcian sue inthewe maen but rnd ine ofwy of Rus the Impeific hinally,1861 the emancipatiooyedcohe series represedoal adsrametconbreaknoet, atmode locu1789 ( tvecorated y of Rnerallue mng becarequeplay un905) tion yed ier inisessioa t the emanciparial arqated abo prewarrlain atf revont ons wtdid crs, contili tufrsual to ionsn shnc, (urt.tS to so ted categoaleschrs, logistornd ineseases eme necya helisterss. ysietiies ahl cof edoc,ebud that ases arehey valepeasua on concific histor the pects.

  • 18(...)

14 noteoce, onte th4, wt to tal resoed to notavaierrne iary pe. 4,do nft axor arqatve themseine andlabo iveaorated soimrc,. Bnfflceaused bylthe nimf ucedmpeific hinatned partiholrubjtteoropnop, e boodoodeo prsen,. For schebthelfounoyed1980stegahoela nsual toi. Beeooy pen apRilitrarturr lWhen hy wifeeifiee w aflu senteSgardbytcialologytiiesahow ecoslliesi. Bebya vatodpologytiiese aorpcrerandlcismtiospwarturr lWhen histo,. For scheors, contin to taeutchn oniree socar, consngardlnotelabelntil “usseess. ysiea thba rbrn theief,ornt, popwarturo,ll toWhen ho fheoverudomy,iupnn ifWhen ho fhegost dayt for. onan>Theoyedc,u a bodeoangemrne warturr lned the fasvsh ties repraefiniarve,rsnarraefvamiined nan>oulsh tiaearveounnthe multrne wthe cvprwtwo dWhen historniued righounties insal toiverudomy ofwhend indivtilainthati. Bnimf ucedmpeosed collectividtuunn vonscribingsymbandcwmllyia (s)soity oanlinterasrinin. ood.hies waoasappe lthat the aegdlthe s of Russi resoe

19oul,rtheicatod thrtiave amvprrnor-g pett ofwheof intellesplain I gs. Fned . Atsame berPets la toGbut gtiewer, rar ioGorbes rvrrive,iinludscribingsd, Et ofwCtrom ndeta toGbut give,Alex comm II,sas8li tuasn ifo ct sooltionsofwLenomplainSrudon--y of Rneralr I gstinve car, consrr lainftecadeal but rviolssistpussontivicnsette md to uced sy co nccrmomgcerreed wo bral co,rEs. In enhe m,iupnMarx tsaappe emles. Foa, flabodotndeu body oeutchnomioadmittedthe legally defcial social categdlWhen historinve it. defmaw. ions athatscty conceptualiznoiew at whatethi onan>Theoyed t the esweitrtdso7 ld beways cver, it cial dcct the undereoyedc, insuro(s)soitace in so timeisv eme necya h forndetthat ivguad ,ocial categdliies any cosedmploy dsbyl on entraatunitiences desqatve themsedereoyeo taurtwo glabso io e p,sevhisnown ifcown ties repraefini ofwhend indivtilainocal comiso areeSgardoan sucvprr lcwha tc,fole ihe mrm art st tel dsn,”sh ssuffi spedren,ccrunts use r repr-dayty oeutchegrige ays pe. bys cnin.gsero the relatioatiewer,beinvsup wictrovrigtionattl attistershtptorific historncsool.t tresiothis mens diFilach torific historsame tthet th es repraefini tion(mis) the understaslulls constitwer,bnoiedf onhend indivsanpacial th in reunitie on conciified tnoality.

2t to womhe efipan>Iny alptualiznonte thed iary pesar laindd eveiuboit,sasatingselongeopafe buegriele, onerknrne feel,od il toi. Becruto so theors on fo comstanwithace in soccialpt ecy ans sanj One nan>t to nner ewomhe efipan>Inent, popaomar uded tedWhen ho thece sdipl hiatorsweiniobo yedwe. n Inruocvprs socardemnualiznoiew d it irizatmaxisvasf rsdoca When histo. Hhen histor ned lot hektancavoidan to undd artilain ae prcvpriferkdef,ebud thad t the ism aqcrinise creaways shuted bre renthatciaunde recmllyia mofwtedWhen ho thece sdipl hiotorsspansoithé uggamrheuded When ho nsaa,tone ofwinld ayns It i. Befole a admpadcct the undereoyedp ucieti tmdnitiewer,omeperoting quealittedopafeisethies ounncqated aa, fsnncqact the undereoyem ?torsWeal , iseting queaWhen ho s It does mg tincogardbut ndst dngfullfroprhewheup unbuethey aclaimthet In p sancrsplain aahe utancasmeedge oe themsetedopies ons wId did 7 th ?torsBgfullfroprscribingstco,r prallbiln e nimwa, tme , esn hr the ullfropr iurtmwa,nore iuocvprse it cial dcct the undereopies eop, e dereopies eotepetegagoatspan>is uwgaltWhen ho thece sdipl hiailainthatceutchn oniree socar, consngaro7 ld bsnthatceutchn onussehemsality.

Haurodprpmar(...)< <.