{"title":"俄罗斯民主的遗产渊源:从帝国资产阶级到后共产主义中产阶级","authors":"T. Dennison","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Histories of Russia focus almost exclusively on discontinuities—the “Time of Troubles” in the sixteenth century, the Emancipation Act of 1861, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Such emphases have reinforced a general view of Russian society as perpetually lurching from crisis to crisis. There is certainly value in the study of Russian upheaval; episodes of instability can shed light on larger questions about social and political organization in the past. But, according to Lankina, the (often overlooked) continuities across ruptures can teach us at least as much, as is borne out by the findings of her ambitious new study of the Russian middle class. In this book, Lankina investigates the reproduction of Russia’s small but (as she shows) constant bourgeois stratum from the imperial era, across the turmoil and upheaval of the twentieth century, to the postSoviet present day. She is interested in the transmission of values across generations and the implications of this phenomenon for social, political, and economic development. Can we connect those estates (socio-legal groups, or soslovii in Russian) associated with “bourgeois” values in the imperial period to the Soviet intelligentsia in the twentieth century, and further, to groups with more positive views of democratic reforms in Russia today? And can we draw any larger lessons from the Russian case? These are, as Lankina herself acknowledges, big, complicated, and difficult questions to answer; refreshingly, she approaches them as such. Instead of reducing the problem to one narrow question that she can address using data alone, she takes a truly interdisciplinary approach, consulting literatures and methodologies from a range of fields, including history, sociology, and quantitative political science. She uses both textual and quantitative evidence and formulates her hypotheses in relation to a broad range of disciplinary concepts from Weber’s notion of the Ständestaat and Bourdieu’s idea of “cultural capital” to de Vries’ “industrious revolution” and Piketty’s recent work on inequality. Lankina moves comfortably between micro-history and statistical analysis, between a local archive filled with textual sources and large data sets. She quickly introduces us to a local community in Samara province in the nineteenth century, the fortunes of which she follows across generations. These people’s actions and words—the way in which they perceived their social identity and values and the choices that they","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":"53 1","pages":"652-653"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Estate Origins of Democracy in Russia: From Imperial Bourgeoisie to Post-Communist Middle Class by Tomila Lankina\",\"authors\":\"T. Dennison\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jinh_r_01918\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Histories of Russia focus almost exclusively on discontinuities—the “Time of Troubles” in the sixteenth century, the Emancipation Act of 1861, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Such emphases have reinforced a general view of Russian society as perpetually lurching from crisis to crisis. There is certainly value in the study of Russian upheaval; episodes of instability can shed light on larger questions about social and political organization in the past. But, according to Lankina, the (often overlooked) continuities across ruptures can teach us at least as much, as is borne out by the findings of her ambitious new study of the Russian middle class. In this book, Lankina investigates the reproduction of Russia’s small but (as she shows) constant bourgeois stratum from the imperial era, across the turmoil and upheaval of the twentieth century, to the postSoviet present day. She is interested in the transmission of values across generations and the implications of this phenomenon for social, political, and economic development. Can we connect those estates (socio-legal groups, or soslovii in Russian) associated with “bourgeois” values in the imperial period to the Soviet intelligentsia in the twentieth century, and further, to groups with more positive views of democratic reforms in Russia today? And can we draw any larger lessons from the Russian case? These are, as Lankina herself acknowledges, big, complicated, and difficult questions to answer; refreshingly, she approaches them as such. Instead of reducing the problem to one narrow question that she can address using data alone, she takes a truly interdisciplinary approach, consulting literatures and methodologies from a range of fields, including history, sociology, and quantitative political science. She uses both textual and quantitative evidence and formulates her hypotheses in relation to a broad range of disciplinary concepts from Weber’s notion of the Ständestaat and Bourdieu’s idea of “cultural capital” to de Vries’ “industrious revolution” and Piketty’s recent work on inequality. Lankina moves comfortably between micro-history and statistical analysis, between a local archive filled with textual sources and large data sets. She quickly introduces us to a local community in Samara province in the nineteenth century, the fortunes of which she follows across generations. These people’s actions and words—the way in which they perceived their social identity and values and the choices that they\",\"PeriodicalId\":46755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"652-653\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01918\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01918","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Estate Origins of Democracy in Russia: From Imperial Bourgeoisie to Post-Communist Middle Class by Tomila Lankina
Histories of Russia focus almost exclusively on discontinuities—the “Time of Troubles” in the sixteenth century, the Emancipation Act of 1861, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Such emphases have reinforced a general view of Russian society as perpetually lurching from crisis to crisis. There is certainly value in the study of Russian upheaval; episodes of instability can shed light on larger questions about social and political organization in the past. But, according to Lankina, the (often overlooked) continuities across ruptures can teach us at least as much, as is borne out by the findings of her ambitious new study of the Russian middle class. In this book, Lankina investigates the reproduction of Russia’s small but (as she shows) constant bourgeois stratum from the imperial era, across the turmoil and upheaval of the twentieth century, to the postSoviet present day. She is interested in the transmission of values across generations and the implications of this phenomenon for social, political, and economic development. Can we connect those estates (socio-legal groups, or soslovii in Russian) associated with “bourgeois” values in the imperial period to the Soviet intelligentsia in the twentieth century, and further, to groups with more positive views of democratic reforms in Russia today? And can we draw any larger lessons from the Russian case? These are, as Lankina herself acknowledges, big, complicated, and difficult questions to answer; refreshingly, she approaches them as such. Instead of reducing the problem to one narrow question that she can address using data alone, she takes a truly interdisciplinary approach, consulting literatures and methodologies from a range of fields, including history, sociology, and quantitative political science. She uses both textual and quantitative evidence and formulates her hypotheses in relation to a broad range of disciplinary concepts from Weber’s notion of the Ständestaat and Bourdieu’s idea of “cultural capital” to de Vries’ “industrious revolution” and Piketty’s recent work on inequality. Lankina moves comfortably between micro-history and statistical analysis, between a local archive filled with textual sources and large data sets. She quickly introduces us to a local community in Samara province in the nineteenth century, the fortunes of which she follows across generations. These people’s actions and words—the way in which they perceived their social identity and values and the choices that they
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history