There are few topics that have been as present in post-Soviet histories as empire and its aftermath. Tales of century-long Russia oppression have become core elements of many historical narratives in the former Soviet republics. In Western European scholarship concepts from imperial history and post-colonial studies have had a big influence on the historiography of Russia and the Soviet Union. However, these are recent phenomena: in most histories of Russia, written in Russia or the Soviet Union itself as well as in the West before 1991, empire has been left out to an astonishing degree. Only for the Soviet Union the so-called “nationality question” was a larger topic, appearing in Soviet praise for the “friendship of the peoples” or condemnation of “anti-Soviet nationalism” and “Great-Russian chauvinism”.
This essay picks up on some of these issues and looks at how various scholars interested in the imperial aspects of Russian history have put them into a comparative perspective. Although the number of works is still limited, especially compared to the huge number of studies on different Western European empires, it is possible to draw some general conclusions. This will also be helpful in considering to what extent Russian experiences could reflect back on more general theories of empire or post-colonial studies.
Table of Contents
Comparative Perspectives on Imperialism and Empire in Late Imperial Russia
Dietrich Geyer: Imperialism without Empire
Dominic Lieven: The Ubiquity of Empire
Alexander Morrison: Putting the Colonial State in the Centre
The Ottoman Perspective
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores how various scholars have analyzed the imperial aspects of Russian history through a comparative lens. It aims to evaluate to what extent Russian imperial experiences challenge or refine general theories of empire and post-colonial studies, particularly by contrasting them with Western European and Ottoman models.
- Comparison of Russian imperial historiography with Western European and Ottoman paradigms.
- Evaluation of "imperialism" versus "empire" as analytical frameworks in the Russian context.
- Examination of the relationship between domestic social instability and foreign imperial expansion.
- Analysis of the Russian Empire as a hybrid construction, bridging "core" and "periphery" dynamics.
- The impact of international power politics on the internal development of the Russian state.
Excerpts from the Book
Dietrich Geyer: Imperialism without Empire
One of the rare pre-1991 contributions to the comparative history of the Russian Empire is an article by Dietrich Geyer from the early 1970s, which was in 1978 followed by a larger monograph on “Russian imperialism”. Whereas the monograph deals solely with Russia, Geyer connects his work with a debate about imperialism in Germany in the 1970s, which was mainly concerned with British and German imperialism. Geyer used some of the hypotheses developed by social historians like Hans-Ulrich Wehler and Wolfgang Mommsen for Western Europe, and tried to apply them to the Russian situation.
One of the main concerns in this debate was to find a way to look at imperialist expansion that was different from diplomatic history, geopolitics, and the late 19th century tradition in German historiography. Social historians like Wehler strove to systematically integrate the history of foreign policy and social history. They wanted to explain imperialist expansion and foreign policy in late Imperial Germany as a result of domestic social conflicts. The main argument put forward by Wehler was that imperialist foreign policies in the late 19th century were an attempt by traditional military elites to maintain their legitimacy in spite of the social and political upheaval caused by industrialization and urbanisation.
Geyer sees this framework as generally applicable to the Russian case and, like Wehler, he is mainly interested in the “inner aspects of external affairs”. He sees a communality of all forms of imperialism in the attempt to stabilize the social system (“innergesellschaftliche Systemstabilisierung”) through external expansion. However, Geyer also hopes to broaden Wehler's paradigm by including the Russian case: for him, Russia demonstrates that imperialism was not exclusively a phenomenon of industrialized societies, but could also occur as a result of the “transformation crisis” brought about in a predominantly agrarian society by the advent of capitalist forms of land tenure and production.
Chapter Summary
Comparative Perspectives on Imperialism and Empire in Late Imperial Russia: This introductory section examines how historical narratives of the Russian Empire have shifted from a focus on nationalism to broader imperial and post-colonial studies.
Dietrich Geyer: Imperialism without Empire: This chapter analyzes Geyer's application of social historical models to Russia, arguing that imperial expansion served to stabilize the internal social system during periods of transformation.
Dominic Lieven: The Ubiquity of Empire: This chapter explores Lieven’s conceptualization of the Russian Empire as a "great power" and highlights its hybrid nature, distinguishing it from Western maritime colonial models.
Alexander Morrison: Putting the Colonial State in the Centre: This chapter focuses on the local perspective, comparing Russian administration in Turkestan with British India to understand everyday colonial practices and indigenous agency.
The Ottoman Perspective: This chapter compares the Russian and Ottoman Empires, emphasizing their shared ambiguous position as semi-peripheral powers navigating modernity and Western European financial influence.
Keywords
Russian Empire, Imperialism, Comparative History, Post-colonial Studies, Dietrich Geyer, Dominic Lieven, Alexander Morrison, Ottoman Empire, Modernity, Transformation Crisis, Colonial Administration, Foreign Policy, Social Stabilization, Turkestan, Great Power Politics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this research paper?
The paper examines how historians have used comparative approaches to interpret the imperial history of Russia, particularly by applying theories of imperialism and empire to the Russian context.
What are the central thematic fields covered in the text?
The central themes include the historiography of the Russian Empire, the relationship between domestic policy and imperial expansion, the influence of Western European economic systems, and comparisons with the British and Ottoman Empires.
What is the primary objective of this study?
The primary goal is to assess how the Russian experience reflects on general theories of empire and whether integrating Russia into a comparative framework can help refine post-colonial studies.
Which scientific methodology is primarily employed?
The author uses a historiographical analysis methodology, synthesizing and critiquing the comparative frameworks developed by scholars like Geyer, Lieven, and Morrison.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The body analyzes the works of three key scholars, exploring their theories on Russian imperialism, the "ubiquity" of empire as an historical norm, and the administrative practices in colonial frontier regions like Turkestan.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Russian Imperialism, Comparative Empire, Modernization, Colonial Administration, and Global History.
How does the paper differentiate between "imperialism" and "empire"?
The text suggests that earlier scholars viewed "imperialism" as a foreign policy tool for domestic stabilization, whereas contemporary historians view "empire" as a structural state formation or a broader historical norm.
What parallel does the author draw between the Russian and Ottoman Empires?
Both are depicted as "ambiguous" powers that were financially dependent on the West, yet attempted to modernize and exert control over their peripheries using methods inspired by Western imperialism.
Why was the Russian Empire historically absent from comparative empire studies?
The author notes that Russian and Ottoman elites maintained a "unitary" vision of the state, which obscured the traditional colonial distinctions between a central metropolis and peripheral territories found in Western maritime empires.
- Quote paper
- Moritz Deutschmann (Author), 2009, Comparative Perspectives on Imperialism and Empire in Late Imperial Russia, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/163885
