Obshchestvennost' and Civic Agency in Late Imperial and Soviet Russia

Home , Georgy Gapon, Larisa Bogoraz, Pavel Litvinov, Soviet dissidents

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Selection, introduction, conclusion and editorial content © Yasuhiro Matsui 2015 Individual chapters © Contributors 2015 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978–1–137–54722–4 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Obshchestvennost’ and civic agency in late imperial and Soviet Russia : interface between state and society / edited by Yasuhiro Matsui (professor, Faculty of Social and Cultural Studies, Kyushu University, Japan). pages cm Summary: “In modernizing Russia, obshchestvennost’, an indigenous Russian word, began functioning as an indispensable term to illuminate newly emerging active parts of society and their public identities. This volume approaches various phenomena associated with obshchestvennost’ across the revolutionary divide of 1917, targeting a critic and the commercial press in the late Imperial society, workers and the public opinion in the revolutionary turmoil of 1905, the liberals during the First World War, worker-peasant correspondents in the 1920s, community activists in the 1930s, medical professionals under late Stalinism, people’s vigilante groups and comrade courts throughout the 1950s–1960s and Soviet dissidents. Furthermore, focusing on obshchestvennost’ as a strategic word appealing to active citizens for political goals, this book illustrates how the state elites and counter-elites used this word and sought a new form of state-society relation derived from their visions of progress during the late imperial and Soviet Russia”—Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978–1–137–54722–4 (hardback) 1. Soviet Union—Social conditions. 2. Russia—Social conditions—1801–1917. 3. Civil society—Soviet Union—History. 4. Civil society—Russia—History. 5. Soviet Union— Politics and government. 6. Russia—Politics and government—1801–1917. 7. Agent (Philosophy)—Political aspects—Soviet Union—History. 8. Agent (Philosophy)— Political aspects—Russia—History. 9. Political participation—Soviet Union—History. 10. Political participation—Russia—History. I. Matsui, Yasuhiro, 1960– HN523.O266 2015 306.0947—dc23 2015021449

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India. Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4

Contents

List of Tables vii Acknowledgements viii Notes on Contributors x

Introduction 1 Yasuhiro Matsui 1 Russian Critics and Obshchestvennost’, 1840–1890: The Case of Vladimir Stasov 16 Yukiko Tatsumi 2 From Workers’ Milieu to the Public Arena: Workers’ Sociability and Obshchestvennost’ before 1906 34 Yoshifuru Tsuchiya 3 The Notion of Obshchestvennost’ during the First World War 61 Yoshiro Ikeda 4 Nikolai Bukharin and the Rabsel’kor Movement: Sovetskaia Obshchestvennost’ under the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ 82 Zenji Asaoka 5 Obshchestvennost’ in Residence: Community Activities in 1930s Moscow 109 Yasuhiro Matsui 6 What Was Obshchestvennost’ in the Time of Stalin? The Case of the Post-war Soviet Medical Profession 128 Mie Nakachi 7 Obshchestvennost’ in the Struggle against Crimes: The Case of People’s Vigilante Brigades in the Late 1950s and 1960s 152 Kiyohiro Matsudo 8 Public and Private Matters in Comrades’ Courts under Khrushchev 171 Kazuko Kawamoto

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 vi Contents

9 Obshchestvennost’ across Borders: Soviet Dissidents as a Hub of Transnational Agency 198 Yasuhiro Matsui Conclusion 219 Yasuhiro Matsui

Name Index 225 Subject Index 228

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4

Introduction Yasuhiro Matsui

Obshchestvennost’ as Russia’s indigenous term

Seken is an indigenous and a commonly used Japanese word. It expresses a type of lifeworld, like air, that exists between individual and society, and regulates the behaviours of almost all Japanese people. Seken, a sort of invisible force which restricts people’s individual freedom, underlies the well-ordered Japanese society that was allegedly preserved even in the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake that occurred on 11 March 2011. In search of a new approach to analysing the distinctiveness of Japanese society, some scholars have focused on this indigenous term at the exclusion of western-originated, yet widely used terms such as civil society, public sphere and others.1 A similar approach may be applicable to Russia, which started to mod- ernise at almost exactly the same time as Japan, in the middle of the nineteenth century. In so doing, obshchestvennost’, a derivative term of obshchestvo (society), is a unique word rooted in Russian history. As the term is often considered difficult to translate directly to other Western languages, it has been replaced with various phrases in English, such as public, public sphere, public opinion, social organisations, educated society, middle class and civil society. Against the background of the emergence of civil society and a growing debate around this phenomenon during regime change in Eastern Europe and the USSR from the end of the 1980s through the 1990s, obshchestvennost’ has drawn attention from quite a few scholars who have attempted to reconsider modern and contemporary Russian history as coloured by the autocratic rule of the Tsarist and Communist regimes. Focusing on the range of voluntary associations— like circles, clubs, charitable associations, and academic and professional

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 2 Yasuhiro Matsui organisations—that thrived in modernising Russia, rather than on state elites or people themselves, they argue for the establishment of civil society in late Tsarist Russia.2 V. Ia. Grosul, who wrote the history of obshchestvo in Russia prior to the appearance of obshchestvennost’ as both a word and reality, noted that ‘Russian society as a special social organism’, clearly distinguished from both the power of the state (gosudarstvo) and the people (narod), had emerged and developed under Peter’s reforms at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Mainly composed of aristocrats (dvorianstvo) who had been liberated from state service, it had the character of secu- lar and polite society. The important aspect of Grosul’s remark is that it was the state and its measures that enabled the emergence of Russian society, although the trend of ‘the European Enlightenment and the philosophy of rationalism’ affected the process. This relationship between state and society may be characteristic of the ensuing modern history of Russia.3 While Grosul uses the term obshchestvennost’ as an approximate syno- nym for obshchestvo,4 Vadim Volkov, who describes a concise conceptual history of obshchestvennost’ from its origins in the late eighteenth century to the Soviet period, points out that the intellectuals in the middle of the nineteenth century contrasted obshchestvennost’ with obshchestvo, which was accompanied by an implication of polite society.5 According to Volkov, obshchestvennost’ carries two basic connotations: ‘first, an abstract quality of “sociality” or social solidarity, and second, an active social agency, socially-active groups of people, the public’. Over the course of the nineteenth century, the word came to signify ‘a certain group of people sharing a set of civic virtues’ or ‘a “progressive” part of society’.6 A. S. Tumanova, a leading historian on this matter, also defines obshchestvennost’ as ‘an advanced and educated part of society that thinks with categories of public welfare and progress’.7 Based on Tumanova’s definition, obshchestvennost’ appears to overlap with intelligentsia to a considerable extent, another word deeply rooted in Russian history. Indeed, both words, which were ‘firmly built in the language of self-description of educated Russian’, as distinct from the state and people, had been broadly circulating since the late nineteenth century, and enjoyed ‘universal acceptance in all quarters of imperial society’.8 In addition, each word also continued to function as a key social concept in Soviet Russia even beyond the 1917 Revolution. However, what is important here is that obshchestvennost’ as ‘the public’ comprising ‘socially active groups of people’ could be conceptually

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Introduction 3 broader and more flexible than intelligentsia, which was often defined as a social stratum. In any event, the word obshchestvennost’ was used and circulated to illuminate and derive an active and progressive portion of society working on a wide range of public missions. Therefore, this word should be seen as a category differentiated from society in general, as well as from both the state and the people.

Obshchestvennost’ as a human group, public identity and a strategic word

Thus, if obshchestvennost’ is outlined as an objective reality or human group, one can consider the proportion of Russian society it occupied. Indeed, B. N. Mironov, who has defined obshchestvennost’ in his own way (such as social groups within the population, or sometimes indi- viduals and public or status organisations and institutes that affect official power and whose opinions are considered by those in power in executing their policies),9 puts forward the question of who the members of the obschestvennost’ from the seventeenth to the beginning of the twentieth centuries were, and answered it as follows: in Muscovite Russia (Moskovskaia Rus’), obshchestvennost’ were those who had rights to attend the Zemskii Sobor (assembly of the land). In 1678, they numbered 770,000, or around 8% of the total population. In 1870–1914, obshchestvennost’ related to census citizens who had voting rights in the Zemstvo (an organ of rural self-government), the City Duma (assembly) and, from 1906, the State Duma. They com- prised 10% of the population in 1870–1892, 7% in 1893–1905 and 16% in 1906–1917, respectively.10 However, such statistical data alone seem insufficient to grasp the entire picture of obshchestvennost’. The term could also be said to stand out amongst the discourse and practices circulating and being performed in society. Again, Volkov’s article offers numerous sugges- tions. Stressing that ‘[i]t is difficult to define concrete boundaries of obshchestvennost’ and its organisational belonging’, he remarks that the word ‘can be employed as a discursive referent to indicate the carrier of public opinion … or as a name for some imagined collective agent of a certain concerted social action or activity’. His understanding of obshchestvennost’ as a ‘discursive referent’ and ‘imagined collective agent’ is particularly important; yet Volkov also adds that obshchestvennost’ ‘is constituted as a correlate of communication or concerted action, and

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 4 Yasuhiro Matsui an individual can be said to be a “member” of obshchestvennost’ if and as long as he or she takes part in such an action’.11 Based on these remarks, we can safely say that obshchestvennost’ is a social or public identity constructed through discursive and practical activities, and distinguished from the state, society in general and narod.12 In his memoir, V. A. Maklakov, who was a well-known lawyer, political activist in the Liberation Movement, leader of the Kadet party (Constitutional-Democratic Party) and member of the State Duma in the late Imperial period, repeatedly uses the phrase ‘nasha (our) obshchestvennost’’ in the context of the 1905 Revolution.13 Thus, we also need to pay attention to citizens’ self-consciousness or self–other consciousness to identify the imagined collective agent, as well as to consider objective entities. In the political and social realities of late Imperial Russia, the making of obshchestvennost’ as a new social or public identity was often inex- tricably linked with the process of self-organisation (samoorganizatsiia) that Tumanova emphasised as an important aspect of obshchestvennost’.14 As Tumanova, Joseph Bradley and others illustrated with a great number of cases and examples, roughly 10,000 voluntary associations had formed in the Russian empire by the beginning of the twentieth century.15 Around the turn of the nineteenth–twentieth century, trade unions and political parties had started to emerge. Thus, obshchestvennost’ significantly increased its presence in Russian society as it encoun- tered the political and social crisis culminating in the 1905 Revolution. Juxtaposing the state power (government) and obshchestvennost’ was becoming popular among both ruling elites and counter-elites, such as the liberal intelligentsia. Maklakov, as a representative of the latter, later wrote a memoir entitled The Power and Obshchestvennost’ at the Sunset of Old Russia,16 while V. I. Gurko, as a representative of the former, sub- titled his memoir Government and Obshchestvennost’ under the Reign of Nicholas II in a Contemporary’s Description.17 In this context, as Chapter 3 of this volume stresses, obshchestvennost’ became a notion reflecting a strategy among counter-elites, especially those liberals who sought to depict themselves as representatives of an educated society organised against an autocratic government and bureaucracy, rather than the actual formation of social relations. In other words, the use of this notion started to be bound to a clear political goal and its appeal to active social forces. In a similar vein, Samuel Kassow, one of the editors and the author of the concluding chapter of a pioneering book using obshchestvennost’ as a key concept, argues that ‘The Liberation Movement had found its voice in appealing to

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Introduction 5 an aroused obshchestvennost’ to take its place alongside the state as the guardian of the nation’s fate, and the pat juxtaposition of a creative public battling an obstructionist state remained a stock theme of certain political discourse until the revolution’.18 On the other hand, state elites may also have understood this term in a strategic manner to acquire the liberals’ support in embarking on reforms for the purpose of preventing the revolution. In his memoir, Gurko, a senior officer of the Interior Ministry, described the Tsarist authorities’ ‘attempt to find an accommodation with obshchestvennost’’ in 1904.19 Maklakov also recollected in detail Sergei Witte’s attempt at dialogue and cooperation with obshchestvennost’, and its failure.20 As can be seen, obshchestvennost’ was used as a discursive referent for strategic appeals conducted by political elites and counter-elites, such as liberal intellectuals who yearned for reforms, a progressive trans- formation of the existing regime and the emergence of a new form of state-society relation. In particular, the liberals who were identified as counter-elites and sought to transform the Tsar’s regime made repeated appeals (or ‘interpellations’, to use Louis Althusser’s word) to obshchestvennost’ as a ‘discursive referent’ and ‘imagined collective agent’ to turn obshchestvennost’ into an active force for progress; in other words, to let them exert their civic agency. Based on the above review of previous research, if we grasp obshchestvennost’ not only as an objective entity or a human group rooted in the historical process of Imperial Russia, but also as a social and public identity connected with social activities and voluntary associations and, further, as a notion reflecting a strategy among power elites and counter-elites who sought a new form of state-society relations derived from their visions of progress, we can reason that the word, which had taken on the flavour of the liberals, was recoined and reused by Bolshevik ideologues in post-revolutionary Russia, who sought a communist society accompanied by the withering away of the state. As is discussed in Chapter 4, the argument for the Soviet obshchestvennost’ became visibly active in the course of the 1920s. One of its advocates, M. Ia. Markovich, notes that the main feature of the Soviet obshchestvennost’ lay in ‘not opposition, but in cooperative support to all of public projects carried out by workers’ and peasants’ power’, while ‘the pre- revolutionary obshchestvennost’ … was characterised by oppositional direction and atmosphere of protest against … the police-autocratic order’.21 However, as Bradley and Kassow emphasise, if civil society, in other words, obshchestvennost’, in Imperial Russia developed under the aegis of the government and ‘Russian civil society was the creation of

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 6 Yasuhiro Matsui the state’,22 closer collaboration between the state and obshchestvennost’ was a basic trend. Its oppositional aspect may have been limited during the period of the 1905 Revolution and the 1917 Revolution. If this was so, the implications of obshchestvennost’ may have been maintained across the divide of the Bolshevik Revolution. Thus, the term obshchestvennost’ once again stands out as a unique and effective concept that contributes to illuminating the interface between state and society, and describing various aspects of their opposition and cooperation in modern and Soviet Russia. As mentioned, previous studies have concentrated more on the late Imperial period, to a considerable extent ignoring the Soviet period, especially from the 1930s onward, although there are a few studies dealing with the NEP (New Economic Policy) period23—in which several associations from the pre-revolutionary period survived and the renaissance of Soviet obshchestvennost’ started—and with the Khrushchev era, when a notable revival of this term was observed.24 The only exception is the short essay by Volkov mentioned above, and even this could not thoroughly cover the phenomenon in all eras, owing to length restrictions. This volume is an attempt to reconsider the inextricable link between state and society in modern and contemporary Russia during a period of approximately 100 years, spanning from the latter half of the nineteenth century to late socialism, in a coherent manner, based on the concept of obshchestvennost’.

Obshchestvennost’ and civil society: interface between state and society

This introduction has established Volkov’s article, ‘Obshchestvennost’: Russia’s Lost Concept of Civil Society’, as the basis for the argument of its conceptual history, and quoted several remarks from Bradley and Tumanova, who stressed that a type of civil society had been established in late Imperial Russia. It may have led readers to the understanding that this book regards civil society and obshchestvennost’ as the same concept. That both concepts are not the same goes without saying, although many of their aspects overlap. Historically, or according to an interpretation extending from Hegel to Marx, civil society originating in Europe matured in the context of enlarging free economic activity that ruled out the state’s arbitrary interference. Therefore, civil society initially meant bourgeois society. Conversely, the Russian indigenous term, obshchestvennost’, had been coined and circulated mainly as a concept indicative of an ‘imagined collective agent’ for transforming

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Introduction 7 an autocratic regime over the course of the nineteenth century. If the words of Isaiah Berlin are used, the former is a concept connected with ‘negative liberty’ while the latter with ‘positive liberty’.25 The difference appears to be attributable to the prolonged Tsarist autocracy and the particularities of modernisation in Russia. However, it is also crucial that the concept of civil society itself is complex and multifaceted. If civil society is considered to mean formal independence from the state, obshchestvennost’ is clearly distinguish- able from civil society, except during a limited period in late Imperial Russia. On the other hand, as Bradley rightly indicated in his book, the concept of civil society has embraced another set of arguments emphasising ‘partnership’ between civil society and state and ‘the sub- servience of the former to the latter’.26 This trend appears to have been re-evaluated in the wake of the ‘retreat’ of the state and the promotion, under or after neoliberalism, of outsourcing public services to private companies and citizens’ voluntary work. As was often advocated during Tony Blair’s administration, active citizenship that emerged in such forms as NGOs and NPOs and partnerships with governments have become a new framework for discussing relationships between the state and civil society, observable in academia and public spheres in other developed countries, including Japan. Nikolas Rose, a British social and political theorist, termed a type of government that incorporates active citizenship into its mechanism ‘advanced liberalism’. Under advanced liberalism, the tasks of government are allocated ‘between the political apparatus, “intermediate associations”, professionals, economic actors, communities and private citizens’, which represent a ‘diagram of government’. Rose also stresses that ‘[c]ivil society, conceptually and historically, was linked to the state within a particular schema for the exercise of political power’.27 The discussion here relates to the issue of the binary framework ‘state and society’ set up in the subtitle of the book as well. Using this framework, the book focuses more on the interface, or on their cross-border aspects. Therefore, this volume is not inclined to interpret the relation between state and society simply as a binary relation between the ruler and the ruled. Rather, it may be adequate to refer to Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality, ‘art of government’, on which Rose also relied. Referring to steering a ship, Foucault argues that government is ‘the right disposition of things, arranged so as to lead to a conveni- ent end’. In particular, he stresses that ‘practices of government are … multifarious and concern many kinds of people’, in other words, various actors.28 In the context of this book, both the various apparatuses

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 8 Yasuhiro Matsui of state and civic agents from civil society are arranged to realise good governance through a type of productive power. Thus, currently, the concept of a civil society unopposed to the state may no longer in a peripheral position. If this is so, the concept of an obshchestvennost’ which is induced by and collaborates with the state power, as seen particularly during the Soviet period, both preceded and is becoming closely related to current conceptual trends regarding civil society. In short, obshchestvennost’ is an indigenous and unique term rooted in Russian history, but the two ideas seem to be moving closer to each other in terms of currently circulating concepts of civil society. In particular, in the current Russian situation under Putin, the concept of civil society (grazhdanskoe obshchestvo) as created and supported by a strong state is becoming increasingly popular, as is expressed in a Public Chamber (obshchestvennaia palata) scheme aimed at incorporating representatives of civil society into the mechanisms of government (see the conclusion of the book). Thus, although obshchestvennost’ is not the same as civil society, it would be worth emphasising their similarities, particularly if we consider the interface between state and society in Russia throughout its long history.

Chapter outline

This volume comprises nine chapters besides the introduction and the conclusion. Chapters 1–3 deal with obshchestvennost’ in the late Imperial period but illuminate some issues to which previous studies have not paid enough attention. Each chapter focuses on the relationship of obshchestvennost’ with the intelligentsia or middle class, workers, and government and narod, respectively. Chapter 1, Yukiko Tatsumi’s essay, raises the genre of criticism in nineteenth-century Russia, and in particular, examines how Russian criticism played an important role in the making of obshchestvennost’, as understood as the middle class and the public sphere. Pointing out that critics in the 1870s–1880s, when the Russian middle class was growing, were inclined to be overlooked by researchers, Tatsumi highlights Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906) from among several remarkable critics. Stasov was an art and music critic well known for promoting the development of ‘Russian national art’ through his support for Peredvizhniki and Moguchaia kuchka. Analysing the way in which media, such as journals and newspapers to which Stasov contributed, changed from periodicals for the intelligentsia to commercial weekly magazines, including Niva, in the course of

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Introduction 9

1870s–1880s, Tatsumi argues that the core of obshchestvennost’ also transferred from the intelligentsia to the middle class. Yoshifuru Tsuchiya, in Chapter 2, does not examine obshchestvennost’ in its own right, but picks up the working classes who were excluded from participating in the civic sphere, or obshchestvennost’, by mem- bership in civic voluntary associations and their informal sociability. In short, he attempts to illuminate obshchestvennost’ from the side of excluded workers, who engaged in informal sociability in almost all aspects of their daily lives. However, the relationship between obshchestvennost’ and workers greatly changed between the periods before and after the 1905 Revolution. Following the liberals’ vision and movement, as well as the demand of workers organised by Georgy Gapon during that time, Tsuchiya demonstrates in detail how obshchestvennost’ became steadily sympathetic towards the working class. The workers’ voice, based on their own conception of sociability, at least temporarily became a component of public opinion in Russian society—that is, in obshchestvennost’. Chapter 3, authored by Yoshiro Ikeda, covers the liberals, in particular the Kadets during the First World War, who considered themselves representative of obshchestvennost’, in other words, as core agents in the struggle against the government and its bureaucracy, strategically using the notion of obshchestvennost’ vis-à-vis bureaucracy and narod. But their identity, based on a dichotomy between obshchestvennost’ and the bureaucracy, started to change with their increasing devotion to war efforts, including cooperation with the bureaucracy. Involved in the mobilisation of material and human resources, the notion of obshchestvennost’ enlarged, transcending partisan division and ethnic barri- ers in Russian Empire, and further embraced the narod in deep corners of peasant Russia. The February Revolution assigned obshchestvennost’, as an organised whole entity, to state power, resulting in the disappear- ance of the dichotomy. Replacing the old dichotomy, however, the new dichotomy between obshchestvennost’ that inherited state power and democratiia, as it was used in those days—consisting of workers and soldiers, emerged, and came to dominate the revolutionary discourse. Thus, the integrating function of obshchestvennost’ vanished, which gave way to the Bolshevik Revolution. Ikeda concludes his essay by emphasising an ironic, yet significant fact of Russian history: that the Bolsheviks revived the notion of obshchestvennost’ with a new adjunctive of Sovetskaia (Soviet) in the 1920s, without those who had identified themselves with it, but that there was a continuity between the old and new obshchestvennost’, in that both

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 10 Yasuhiro Matsui were imagined communities based on a discourse of a struggle against bureaucracy that gave a sense of place and orientation to the isolated, educated layer of a vast country. Following Chapter 3, which mentions the continuity of the notion of obshchestvennost’ beyond the revolutionary divide, Chapters 4–9 encompass a large portion of the Soviet period spanning from the 1920s through Stalin’s reign to the post-Stalin era of the 1950s–1960s. Chapter 4, Zenji Asaoka’s essay, deals with the NEP period, wherein the concept of Sovetskaia obshchestvennost’ surfaced to express a new hope for returning to the ideal of the Socialist Revolution: the realisation of the progression ‘from the state to society’. A hero in this essay is Nikolai Bukharin, an ideologue of the NEP and a true proponent of Soviet obshchestvennost’. Asaoka traces in detail a range of arguments around Soviet obshchestvennost’ developed, optimistically, by Bukharin, who saw a seri- ous danger to the Revolution in the bureaucratic and closed party–state apparatus, and their isolation from the masses. He simultaneously pro- vides an outline of the rabsel’kor (worker–village correspondent) movement, an amateur letter-writing movement centred on corresponding with Soviet newspapers and periodicals, which Bukharin valued highly as a practice of Soviet obshchestvennost’. Although Bukharin’s plan did not allow political pluralism, he consistently attempted to protect the rabsel’kor movement from state and Communist Party direct control as a means of developing Soviet ‘public opinion’ so that it could exert influ- ence on both the state and Party. It could be said that Bukharin’s vision of obshchestvennost’ was a notion reflecting a strategy seeking a new type of state and society based on the ideal of the Revolution, and an appeal to let the Soviet masses exert their agency. After the ‘great turn’ of the late 1920s, obshchestvennost’ was primarily invoked to promote the Stalinist project without regard to its original goal of achieving social maturation. Volkov also remarked that ‘the practical realisation of the ideas associated with obshchestvennost’ was blocked in the times of Stalin’.29 However, pursuing its possibility at the level of housing or in the work of housing cooperatives, Chapter 5 argues that the notion and practice of obshchestvennost’ survived as a form of local and community activism throughout the 1930s. According to Yasuhiro Matsui, the author of Chapter 5, housing organisations such as ZhAKTy (Zhilishchno-arendnye kooperativnye tovarishchestva)—house- leasing cooperative partnerships, which began being organised in 1924—were the main housing-management units in Soviet urban areas, until they were liquidated in 1937. Although the directorate of ZhAKTy, elected by the cooperatives’ members with support from personnel such

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Introduction 11 as janitors and accounts employed by ZhAKTy, was supposed to play a key role in administrative work, other members were also expected to actively participate in this work. In some cases, residents themselves managed their own houses and even constructed a local community. Focusing on the cases in Moscow in the 1930s, Chapter 5 describes the actual situation of housing management under ZhAKTy, their various cultural activities, and especially the operations of a canteen self- managed by a ‘cultural and daily-living commission (kul’turno-bytovaia komissiia)’ located in the Arbat neighbourhood. Through these analyses, the chapter illuminates a unique appearance of obshchestvennost’, or civic agency in the 1930s, which cannot be explained only by mobilisation from above. Chapter 6, authored by Mie Nakachi, looks for an appearance of obshchestvennost’ during the war and post-war periods of the Stalinist regime. She attempts to identify instances wherein obshchestvennost’ was referred to, and to analyse the meaning of this term by examining it within the context in which it was used. While doing so, she gives special attention to the way in which the conception of obshchestvennost’ during these periods was defined in terms of its relationship with the government and bureaucracy, and the level of voluntariness. The main material for analysis is the discourse of the medical profession, especially regarding its concerns in the field of women’s medicine. Marking an era when Soviet citizens demonstrated great activism in defending the nation and helping each other, these periods are characterised by freer expression of opinion compared with the pre-war period. Hence, Nakachi suggests that this was a time of flourishing obshchestvennost’. When the Stalinist state retrenched and repressed those who had mis- interpreted the meaning of Soviet victory between 1947 and 1948, obshchestvennost’ was also silenced. Nevertheless, she argues that the medical profession continued to speak in the great tradition of the ‘enlightened bureaucrats’ and pushed for reform, ultimately successfully. Chapters 7–9 cover the post-Stalin period. In Chapter 7, Kiyohiro Matsudo traces the authorities’ updated policy of Soviet obshchestvennost’ from the late 1950s through the 1960s, dealing with the activities of people’s vigilantes (druzhiny) as a case study. The 21st Communist Party Congress of 1959 that declared embarkation on the road to communism also emphasised that it was desirable to transfer some state functions to social organisations. For the Party and the government of that period, these social organisations and the citizens participating in the building of communism constituted the Soviet obshchestvennost’. Suggesting that vigilantes’ work sometimes remained ‘on paper’ and

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 12 Yasuhiro Matsui was often governed by the authorities’ coercion or participants’ self- interest, Matsudo illuminates an amalgamated form of mobilisation from above, and voluntariness embedded in vigilante activities—in other words, an aspect of the partnership relationships constructed between the authorities and those section of society that found social meaning in this work. In sum, the chapter illustrates a complex appearance of civic agency as a response to the Soviet leaders’ strategic appeal to establish a new type of state–society relationship in the ‘Building Communism’ era. Based on the framework of the Soviet obshchestvennost’ during ‘Building Communism’ shown in Chapter 7, Kazuko Kawamoto in Chapter 8 concentrates on comrades’ courts in the Khrushchev era, which explicitly or implicitly functioned as social control for the state or obshchestvennost’, and an ambiguous border between public and private. The revitalisation of the comrades’ courts in the late 1950s affected the de facto private sphere in various ways. The comrades’ courts were enacted in working and living places to bring to trial what were considered minor offences, such as breaching labour discipline, promoting hooliganism and engaging in domestic violence, so that Soviet citizens could educate each other in the communist spirit. While colleagues and neighbours could intervene in others’ life in the comrades’ courts, they could avoid intervening in cases considered too personal. Furthermore, they could forgive offenders by considering their personal circum- stances as well as their relationships with others. Kawamoto examines the cases dealt with by the comrades’ courts and how they functioned within several Moscow factories to identify their effects and limitations. Chapter 9 once again focuses on the issue of the strategic use of obshchestvennost’ by counter-elites who sought a new form of state–society relation. The agent to be managed this time was Soviet dissidents. On 11 January 1968, Larisa Bogoraz and Pavel Litvinov issued an appeal ‘to the World Public’ (k mirovoi obshchestvennosti) via Western media outlets, for the purpose of openly condemning trials against dissidents. This appeal was an epoch-making event, in which Soviet citizens had raised a voice in protest targeted directly and broadly to a global public. It was also peculiar in its usage of the word obshchestvennost’ to criticise the Soviet authorities. Yasuhiro Matsui, the author of this chapter, trac- ing its background and aftermath, analyses the various responses to the appeal within the Soviet Union and abroad, especially Soviet and foreign citizens’ letters and telegrams addressed to Litvinov, and Soviet intellectuals’ joint statements addressed to the authorities. Through examining these responses, the chapter illustrates the birth of a new

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Introduction 13 type of Soviet public distinct from the official obshchestvennost’, and the embryonic appearance of a type of transnational public sphere that crosses the borders between the East and the West.

This is a general outline of this book, which is an attempt to re-examine the interface between the state and society, straddling the border between the Tsarist and Soviet periods, using obshchestvennost’ as a key concept. In his review of Il’ina’s book, Michael David-Fox notes several important research tasks to be dealt with regarding obshchestvennost’. First is that ‘the key Russian concept [obshchestvennost’] … richly deserves a full-fledged Begriffsgeschichte’. He contends that ‘a better knowledge of the fate of obshchestvennost’ after 1917 would also aid in the cause of developing conceptual vocabularies and historical understandings appropriate for the imperial Russian case as well’. Secondly, summa- rising Il’ina’s observation in the way that ‘autonomous social “self- organisation” was possible in the 1920s, but was totally cut off under Stalinism’, David-Fox also stresses that ‘certain types of public activism were promoted and even demanded by the regime across all the turn- ing points of Soviet history’. Finally, considering the difference between the Stalin and post-Stalin eras, he concludes that ‘a new kind of public involvement became an integral part of the Soviet order’ and a ‘type of civil participation may have to be considered a feature of totalitarian dictatorship as well as backbone of middle-class democracy’.30 Although David-Fox’s review, published more than 10 years ago, is highly evocative, this challenge has not yet been attempted. We intend our book to fill this acknowledged need.

Notes

1. The late Kinya Abe, a leading Japanese historian, was its key advocate. See Kinya Abe, Seken towa nanika (What is Seken?) (Tokyo: Koudansha, 1995). 2. A. S. Tumanova (ed.) Samoorganizatsiia rossiiskoi obshchestvennosti v poslednei treti XVIII-nachale XX v. (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2011), p. 12; Joseph Bradley, Voluntary Associations in Tsarist Russia: Science, Patriotism, and Civil Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), p. 254. 3. V. Ia. Grosul, Russkoe obshchestvo XVIII–XIX vekov: Traditsii i novatsii (Moscow: Nauka, 2003), pp. 6, 492. 4. Ibid., p. 6. 5. Vadim Volkov, ‘Obshchestvennost’: Russia’s Lost Concept of Civil Society’, in Norbert Götz and Jörg Hackmann (eds) Civil Society in the Baltic Sea Region (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003), p. 67. 6. Ibid., pp. 66–67.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 14 Yasuhiro Matsui

7. Tumanova, Samoorganizatsiia rossiiskoi obshchestvennosti, p. 9. 8. Ilya V. Gerasimov, Modernism and Public Reform in Late Imperial Russia: Rural Professionals and Self-Organization, 1905–30 (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 23. 9. B. N. Mironov, Sotsial’naia istoriia Rossii perioda imperii (XVIII-nachalo XX v.): genezis lichnosti, demokraticheskoi sem’i, grazhdanskogo obshchestva i pravovogo gosudarstva, Tom 2 (St. Petersburg: Dmitorii Bulanin, 1999), p. 110. 10. Ibid., pp. 210–211. 11. Volkov, ‘Obshchestvennost’, p. 69. 12. Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D. Kassow and James L. West (eds) Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991). In particular, Gregory L. Freeze noted the ‘obshchestvennost’—the emerging social identity of the educated, propertied middle strata in the city’. See ‘“Going to the Intelligentsia”: The Church and its Urban Mission in Post-Reform Russia’, in Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D. Kassow and James L. West (eds), Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 225. 13. V. A. Maklakov, Vlast’ i obshchestvennost’ na zakate staroi Rossii (Vospominaniia), prilozhenie k ‘Illiustrirovannoi Rossii’ (1936), pp. 316, 430, 432, 440. 14. Tumanova, Samoorganizatsiia rossiiskoi obshchestvennosti, p. 9. 15. Bradley, Voluntary Associations in Tsarist Russia, p. 1. 16. Maklakov, Vlast’ i obshchestvennost’. 17. V. I. Gurko, Cherty i siluety proshlogo: pravitel’stvo i obshchestvennost’ v tsarst- vovanie Nikolaia II v izobrazhenii sovremennika (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2000). 18. Samuel D. Kassow, ‘Russia’s Unrealized Civil Society’, in Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D. Kassow and James L. West (eds) Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 367. Based on an understanding of obshchestvennost’ broadly similar to Kassow’s, Michael Hickey, who analysed the liberals’ discourse and their appeal to obshchestvennost’ in the political process of Spring 1917, immediately after the February Revolution, in Smolensk, argues, ‘liberal appeals to obshchestvennost’ quickly faded’, because of ‘per- vasive class discourses and class-based identities’. See Michael C. Hickey, ‘Discourses of Public Identity and Liberalism in the February Revolution: Somlensk, Spring 1917’ The Russian Review, Vol. 55, No. 4, 1996, p. 637. 19. Gurko, Cherty i siluety proshlogo, part 3. 20. Maklakov, Vlast’ i obshchestvennost’, Chapter 17. 21. M. Ia. Markovich, ‘Sovetskaia obshchestvennost’’, in M. S. Epshtein (ed.) Za novyi byt: posobie dlia gorodskikh klubov (Moscow, 1925), pp. 44–45. 22. Bradley, Voluntary Associations in Tsarist Russia, p. 14; Kassow, ‘Russia’s Unrealized Civil Society’, pp. 367–368. 23. For a representative work, see I. N. Il’ina, Obshchestvennye organizatsii Rossii v 1920-e gody (Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2000). 24. Karl Loewenstein, ‘Obshchestvennost’ as Key to Understanding Soviet Writers of the 1950s: Moskovskii Literator, October 1956-March 1957’ Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2009.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Introduction 15

25. Isaiah Berlin, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, in Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969). 26. Bradley, Voluntary Associations in Tsarist Russia, p. 7. 27. Nikolas Rose, Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 139–140, 168–169. 28. Michel Foucault, ‘Governmentality’, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), pp. 91, 93–94. 29. Volkov, ‘Obshchestvennost’’, p. 70. 30. Michael David-Fox, ‘Review of Irina Nikolaevna Il’ina, Obshchestvennye organizatsii Rossii v 1920-e gody (Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2000)’ Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2002, pp. 173, 177–178, 180–181.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4

Name Index

Agulhon, Maurice, 35, 55 Filosofova, A. P., 24 Alexeyeva, Ludmilla, 199–201, 214, Foucault, Michel, 7 216n30 Fujita, Koichiro, 34–5 Althusser, Louis, 5 Amalrik, Andrei, 201–2, 204 Galanskov, Iu. T., 198, 202, 205 Andropov, Iu.V., 190 Gapon, Georgy, 9, 50 Arsen’ev, K. K., 65 Ge, N. N., 26 Averchenko, A. T., 75 Gerlin, V., 210–13 Gestwa, Klaus, 39 Bakst, L. N., 27 Ginzburg, Alexander, 198, 202, 208, Belinsky, V. G., 17, 19–22, 29 211 Benois, A. N., 27 Gorbanevskaia, Natalia, 203 Berlin, Isaiah, 7 Gorbunov, B. V., 40, 56n32 Blair, Tony, 7 Grigorenko Petr, G., 198 Bogoraz, Larisa, 12, 198–200, 203–7, Grosul, V. Ia., 2, 16 209–14, 216n29, 216n30 Gurko, V. I., 4–5 Borodin, A. P., 22 Bradley, Joseph, 4–7, 16, 83, 100, Ingulov, S. B., 99 128 Il’ina, I. N., 13, 128 Breslauer, George W., 167n4, 168n12 Kamenev, L. B., 100 Brezhnev, L. I., 152, 190–1, 212, Kanatchikov, S., 39, 41, 55n21 221 Kanfer, Edida, 36–7 Bukharin, N. I., 10, 82–91, 93–103, Kassow, Samuel, 4–5 105n27, 220 Katokov, M. M., 20 Burenin, V. P., 24, 32n51 Kenez, Peter, 84 Kerensky, A. F., 74 Chaikovskii, N. V., 63 Khatisov, A. I., 68 Chebankova, Elena, 222 Khrushchev, N. S., 6, 12, 129, 146–7, Chernov, V. M., 80n72 152–3, 155–6, 166, 167n4, 168n12, Chernyshevsky, N. G., 17 171–3, 179, 190–1 Kokoshkin, F. F., 73, 75 Daniel, Iuly, 200–2, 213, 218n46 Kondratenko, Andrei, 43–4, David-Fox, Michael, 13 57n64 Diaghilev, S. P., 27 Kondrat’ev, Fedor Aleksandrovich, 44, Diakov, A. A., 24, 32n51 58n68 Dobrolyubov, N. A., 17 Kopelev, Lev, 199, 205 Dolgorukov, Petr, 49 Korsh, V. F., 20, 22 Kotkin, Stephen, 158 Esenin-Vol’pin, Alexander, 201, 205, Kovrigina, Mariia D., 134, 139, 141–2, 215n12 145 Evdokimov, Andrei Andreevich, 44–5, Kraevsky, A. A., 20 47, 58n68 Kramskoi, I. N., 22, 24, 26, 28

225

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 226 Name Index

Kuibyshev, V. V., 96 Repin, I. E., 22, 26 Kuskova, Ekaterina D., 47 Reve, Karel van het, 199, 201, 203 LaPierre, Brian, 155, 167n4, 169n26, Rimsky-Korsakov, N. A., 22 169n39 Rodichev, F. I., 74 Laputin, V., 165 Rose, Nikolas, 7 Larin, Iu. A., 92–3 Rudenko, Soviet Prosecutor-General, Lefevre, George, 35 210, 216n30 Lenin, V. I., 86–7, 96 Rykov, A. I., 92 Lenoe, Matthew, 83, 102 Likhachev, V. I., 22 Sakharov, Andrei, 201 Litvinov, Pavel, 12, 198–214, 215n9, Semenov-Tian-Shanskii, A. P., 64 216n29, 216n30, 217n37 Severiianin (Vasil’ev), P., 46–7 Liubosh, S. B., 71 Shakhovskoi, D. I., 49, 63 Livshin, Aleksandr, 154 Shapovalov, A. S., 37, 39 L’vov, G. E., 63, 65, 68, Shchelokov, N., 166 70, 72 Shingarev, A. I., 65 Shishkin, I. I., 26 Maklakov, V. A., 4–5 Siniavsky, Andrei, 200–2, 213 Makovsky, K. E., 26 Slavinskii, M. A., 62 Marchenko, Anatorii, 206 Slepkov, A. N., 94 Markovich, M. Ia., 5 Sobko, N. P., 25 Marks, A. F., 18, 25–7 Sokolov, K. N., 75 Merezhkovsky, D. S., 17, 25 Solzhenitsyn, Alexander, 199, 205–6, Mikhailovsky, N. K., 22, 25 213 Mironov, B. N., 3, 34 Spender, Stephen, 204, 206, 210, Mironov, N., 164–5, 168n10 217n37 Myasoyedov, G. G., 28 Stalin, I. V., 10, 13, 101–3, 123–4, 128–31, 143–4, 146–7, 152–5, 167, Nekrasov, N. V., 73 223 Nicholas II, 51–2, 70 Stasov, Dmitry V., 30n9 Nikolai Nikolaevich, 73 Stasov, Vladimir V., 8, 17–29, Ninomiya, Hiroyuki, 35 33n70 Stasova, Elena, D., 30n9 Obninskii, V. P., 68 Stasova, Varvara D., 17 Odom, William E., 84 Stolypin, P. A., 62 Oushakine, Serguei, 213 Struve, Petr, 51, 59n84 Sturmer, B. V., 71 Pasternak, Boris, 131, 200 Suvorin, A. S., 18, 22–4, 46 Pisarev, D. I., 17 Sviatopolk-Mirskii, P., 48 Plehve, Viacheslav von, 48 Polishchuk, N. S., 36–7, 55n15 Tikunov, V., 159, 166 Potebnja, A. A., 17 Tolstoy, D. A., 22 Potresov, A. N., 79n58 Tretyakov, P. M., 24 Prokopovich, Sergei N., 47, 69 Trubetskoi, E. N., 72 Protopopov, A. D., 65 Trubetskoi, Sergei, 52 Purishkevich, V. M., 71 Tumanova, A. S., 2, 4, 6, 16 Putin, Vladimir, 8, 222–3 Tyrkova, A. V., 65, 71

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Name Index 227

Vardin (Mgeladze), I. V., 91 Walker, Barbara, 201, 215n9, Velikhov, Evgenii, 222 216n22 Vereshchagin, V. V., 24 Witte, Sergei Iu., 5 Vinaver, M. M., 76 Vishniak, M. V., 76 Yurchak, Alexei, 166, 221 Volkov, Vadim, 2, 3, 6, 10, 61, 83, 129, 146 Zheludkov, I. Z., 47 Vrangel’, P. N., 75 Zhordania, N. N., 73

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4

Subject Index

abortion, 128, 130–47 repercussions among Soviet and anti-abortion policy, 131–2, 134–5 Western intellectuals, 204–10 clinical (non-clinical), 132–4, role of foreign radio broadcasters, 137–43, 145, 148n16, 149n32 208–10 criminal, 131, 135, 147n15, 148n21 Soviet dissident movement and, pro-abortion policy, 132 199–200 abortion surveillance, 131–3, 136, Soviet public positions to, 138, 140–1, 145, 148n16 212–13 Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS), Bolshevik Revolution, 6, 9, 75 133, 135, 144–5, 150n50 bourgeois citizens’ associations, 35 advanced liberalism, 7 bourgeois society, 6, 89, 92 agency bourgeois spontaneity, 83 free, 162, 165 bureaucracy (bureaucrat, social, 2 bureaucratism), 4, 9–11, 17, 19, transnational, 198–214 42, 51, 62, 64, 77, 81n79, 85–91, see also civic agency 93, 95, 99–102 All-Union Central Council of Trade Bukharin’s perspective, 86–9 Unions, 175 dichotomy between amnesties, 49, 152, 154 obshchestvennost’ and, 69–74 decree ‘On amnesty’, 154 enlightened bureaucrats, 130 anti-Semitism, 69 medical bureaucrats, 132, 142 Arbat neighbourhood, 11, 119–23 rabsel’kors and, 90, 97, aristocrats (dvorianstvo), 2, 53 99–102 Assembly of the Russian Factory and ZhAKT’s activists and, 113–14 Mill Workers of the City of see also chinovniki St. Petersburg, 48, 50 association(s), see voluntary canteen, 11, 109–10, 115–16, 126n38, associations; bourgeois citizens’ 220 associations; communist in the Arbat neighbourhood, associations 119–23 Canteen No., 171, 121–4 BBC, 202–4, 208–9, 214, 218n55 Caucasus, 68, 73 Belarusians, 67 Central Committee of Communist Bloody Sunday, 45, 48, 51 Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Bogoraz–Litvinov appeal, 198–200, 156, 163–4 203–5, 209–12, 214, project of voluntary people’s 217n30 druzhiny, 156–8 background and aftermath of, chinovniki (Russian bureaucrats), 88, 200–6 90 controversy regarding, chistki (purges), 97 206–13 CIA, 150n54 Gerlin’s argument against the civic agency, 5, 11–12, 110, 123, criticism, 211–12 219–20

228

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Subject Index 229

in partnership with the authorities, Crimean Tatars, 198 110, 123 Czechoslovakia, 205–6 see also ZhAKTy civic duty, 128 democracy, 13, 44, 51, 67, 82, 92, 97, civic virtue, 2 101–2, 133, 171, 189 civil society (grazhdanskoe constitutional, 67 obshchestvo), 1–2, 5–8, 16, 34–5, social, 44, 51 83, 95, 104n13, 219, 221–3 Soviet, 101–2, 171, 189 Civil War, 75, 82, 84–5, 92, 99, 208 worker (proletarian), 82, 97 Cold War, 144, 218n55, 221, 223 Deni, 25 collective fistfight, 39–40, 56n32, dictatorship, 13, 82–103 57n48, 57n56 dissidents, see Soviet dissidents collectivisation of agriculture, 120 Doctor Zhivago, 200 commune-state, 84–5, 87 domestic violence, 12, 172, 174, communist associations, 85 184–6 Communist Party, 10, 82, 87, 90–2, drinking, 36, 38–40, 55n21, 56n23, 94–6, 146, 156, 190, 199, 208, 57n56, 179, 182 211, 213, 215n8 druzhinniki (members of people’s Communist Party Congress, druzhiny), 155–65, 169n28, Twenty-first, 11, 152–3 169n39, 169n47 communist regime, 1 Duma, 62–4, 69–71, 74 community, 10–11, 28, 40–1, 57n48, State, 3–4, 54 61–2, 64–8, 73, 75–7, 85, 91, City, 3 109–24, 133, 173, 213, 219–20 community business, 109 Eastern Europe, 1, 205, 217n36, comrades’ courts, 12, 154–5, 158, 163, 217n37, 221 166, 171–91, 193n15, 193n18, Eastern Front, 68 194n25, 194n27, 220 educated society, 1, 4, 40 Constitutional-Democratic Party (the elites, 2, 4–5, 12, 77, 84, 220, 222 Kadets), 4, 61 Enlightenment, 2, 21, 45–6, 82–3, 87, see also Kadet Party 90, 96, 102 consumption, 38, 120, 176, 182, 184, enthusiasm, 90, 99, 122, 190 187–8 extreme right, 66 cooperative relations/cooperation/ dialogue Family Law, 1944, 134–5, 147n14, 172 between the authorities and February Revolution, 9, 14n18, 69, 72, citizens, 152, 154 80n58 between druzhiny and militsiia (state First All Russian Trade Union organs), 155, 160, 163 Conference, 47 between obshchestvennost’ and the First World War, 9, 61–77, 219 state (soviet authorities), 166, 222 foreign radio, 202–3, 209–10, 212, 214 between workers and four-tail formula, 48–9, 52, 54 obshchestvennost’, 54, 60n102 Free Economic Society, 63 correspondent(s), 10, 40, 71, 83, 87–91, 93, 95, 97–8, 100, 105n37, 106n68, glasnost’, 65, 201, 203, 205, 210 198–203, 209, 213–15, 219 Glavpolitprosvet, 84 foreign, 198–203, 209, 213–15, 219 Golos, 18, 20, 24 counter-elites, 4–5, 12, 220 governmentality, 7, 223 Court of Honour, 144–5 Great Patriotic War, 130, 208–9

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 230 Subject Index

Great Reforms, 16–17, 20, 23, 42 Iskusstvo i khudozhestvennaia Great Terror, 102 promyshlennost’, 18, 25 gynaecology, 134, 143, 145 Izvestia Imperatorskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, 18 Het Parool, 201 Izvestiia, 203, 216n29 hooligan (hooliganism), 12, 155, 159–62, 166, 169n28, 169n47, Jewish question, 69 172, 175, 183 Jews, 69, 76 housewife-activists (obshchestvennitsa), 109, 116, 118–19, 121, 124n2, Kadet Party, 4, 63–4, 67, 76, 77n2, 78n34 129 KGB, 202, 206 housewife (wives), 109, 112, 114, 116, Kharkov Mutual Aid Society for 118–21, 123, 129, 176 persons in Artisanal Labour, 43 housing Khudozhestvennye novosti, 18 authorities (management, Kliueva Roskin Affair, 143 administration), 9, 11, 109–15, kommunalka (communal apartment), 119, 123, 125n3, 125n4, 174, 124n3 220 Komsomol, see Young Communist conditions, 41 League cooperatives, 10, 111, 113, 119 Komsomol’skaia pravda, 203 organisation(s), 10, 111, 118, 120, Kursk zemstvo, 66, 78n32 123 partnerships, 111 labour discipline, 12, 162, 166, 172, trusts, 111, 113 174–7, 179–82, 187–8, 190–1 Union of Housing Cooperation, late socialism, 6 116–19 letters, 12, 23, 44, 87–8, 95–6, 100, human rights, 198, 201, 205, 217n37, 106n60, 152, 154, 168, 199–200, 221 202–3, 206–10, 212, 216n24, 216n29 imagined collective agent, 3–6 ‘letters to the power’ (pis’ma vo vlast’), Imperial Academy of Arts, 20–1, 27 152, 154, 215n8 Imperial Russia, 4–7, 13, 29, 34, 54, liberal(s) (liberalism, liberalisation), 128, 220, 223 4–5, 7, 9, 14n18, 20, 25, 34, 38, Imperial School of Jurisprudence, 19 47–52, 61–7, 69–73, 75–7, 79n58, 86, Imperial Society for the 91, 94, 96, 163, 171, 197n126, 219–21 Encouragement of the Arts, 21 Liberation Movement, 4, 52 Index on Censorship, 217n37 institutionalised association, 35 magarych, 36 intellectuals, 2, 5, 12, 20, 23, 60n102, Malenkie pis’ma, 23 61–3, 69, 76–7, 128, 143, 145–6, Manifesto of 17 October 1905 205, 207, 210–11, 213, 220 (October Manifesto), 47, 54, 71 Western, 210, 213 Marxist-Leninist ideology, 171 intelligentsia, 2–4, 8–9, 14, 17, 20–1, mass voluntarism, 84 25, 28–9, 36, 47, 72, 82, 88, 98, Mayakovsky Square, 205 144, 215n9, 221 May Day (festival, demonstration), International Herald Tribune, 203, 44, 110, 115–18, 123, 159, 217n33 media International Women’s Day, 109, 115, Soviet, 116, 206, 209, 213 121 Western, 12, 213

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Subject Index 231 middle class, 1, 8–9, 13, 16, 23, 26, Novoe vremia, 18, 22–4, 27, 64 28–9, 219 Novosti, 18, 25 milieu (workers’ milieu), 34–54, 71 militsiia, 153–64, 168n10 Obshchestvennoe pitanie, 109, 121 Mir iskusstva, 27 obshchestvennost’ miscarriage, 136–41, 149n32 bureaucracy and, 69–72 mobilisation (mobilise, mobilised), common people and, 69–72 9, 11–12, 64, 70, 84, 95, 98–100, community activities under, see 102, 115, 119, 123, 134, 148n26, ZhAKTy 154–5, 157–8, 161–2, against crimes, 152–65 165–7 criticism and mobilisation, 95–9 modernisation, 7, 85 definitions and uses, 1–8 Moguchaia kuchka, 8, 17, 20 as a derivative term of obshchestvo Molva, 18, 25 (society), 1 Morning Star, 203 First World War and, 62–4 Moscow City Trade Union Council, in the late-NEP era, 95–9 176 mass mobilisation and revolution Moscow dissident circle, 199–200, 209 from above, 99–103 see also Soviet dissidents members of, 3, 71–2 Moscow Institute for Gynaecology mirovaia, 198–9, 213, 221 and Obstetrics (MIGO), 145 as a moralized community, 64–7 Moscow Oblast’ Council of the Trade multi-ethnic character of, 67–9 Union, 161 as an objective reality or human Moskovskii komsomolets, 203 group, 3–6 Muscovite Russia (Moskovskaia Rus’), 3 parents’, 118, 129 Muslims, 74 as ‘partnership’ between civil mutual aid organisation(s) (mutual society and state, 6–8, 123, 220 aid society, mutual aid societies), in people’s druzhiny, 158–62 36, 42–8, 53 Public Chamber and, 222–3 as public identity, 3–6 Narkompros, 84 rabsel’kors and, 90–5 narod (people), 2, 4, 8–9, 50, 54, 72, relationship between government 75, 146 and, 70–1 negative liberty, 7 1917 Revolution and, 72–5 neoliberalism, 7, 223 russkaia, 82, 98, 103n1 ‘new course’(as peasant policy), 91, sovetskaia , see Soviet (sovetskaia) 93, 96–7, 105n39 obshchestvennost’ New Economic Policy (NEP), 6, 10, as a strategic word, 3–6, 9–10, 12, 76, 82–6, 91, 93, 95–6, 98–9, 102, 62, 66, 72, 220 109, 120, 220 taverns and, 38–9 newspapers voluntary activism in women’s foreign, 200, 202 medicine, 130–46 pro-Communist, 203, 213 wives’ activism, 129 (see also Soviet, 10, 87, 199, 203, 206 housewife-activists) New York Times, 201 working class and, 53–4 The Nineteenth Century: Illustrated obshchestvo (society), 1–2, 8, 13, 16, Review of the Past Century, 18, 27 43, 54n3, 70, 84, 106, Niva, 8, 18, 25–7 221 NKVD, 106n60 obstetrics, 134, 143, 145

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 232 Subject Index

October Revolution, 99, 110, 123, Soviet, 13, 86, 172–3, 198, 200, 155, 173, 208 202–3, 211–12, 214, 215n9 Octobrist(s), 66, 71 transnational, 13, 200, 204, 207, opposition (oppositionist), 5–6, 48, 213–14, 215n9 59n79, 61, 69–71, 82, 91, 94, Public Chamber (obshchestvennaia 98–100, 199, 207, 211–14, 221–2 palata), 8, 222–3 Orgburo, 94 public/private sphere, 171–91 Otechestvennye zapiski, 18–20, 22 personal life, 171–2, 175, 177, 189, 191, 192n4 partnership, 7, 10, 12, 66, 110–11, private life, privacy, 171–2, 120, 123, 165, 219–20, 222–3 176–8, 185, 189–90, 192n4 between civil society and state, 7, public life, 62, 153, 167n4 12, 123, 165, 220, 222–3 public/private distinction, 175–8 with authorities (government), 7, public sphere, 1, 7–8, 13, 16–17, 29, 110, 120, 219, 34, 36, 39, 42, 48, 53, 62, 65, 95, Party Congress, 11, 73, 80n72, 86, 189, 200, 202, 204, 207, 214, 221 152–4, 156, 165, 173 transnational, 13, 200, 204, 207, passports, 110, 206 214 peasants (pesantry), 5, 53, 72–6, 82–3, purge, 97, 131, 143, 145 92–3, 96, 98, 182 Pushkin Square, 201–2, 205 People’s Commissariat of Health (NKZ), 132, 134–5, 144, 148n21 rabkor, 87–8, 90–1, 100 people’s druzhiny (vigilante brigades), Rabkrin (Workers’ and Peasants’ 11, 150–67, 169n26, 169n28, Inspectorate), 96 169n47 Rabochaia moskva, 117 activities of, 163–5 rabsel’kor movement, 10, 82–103 establishment of, 156–8 Radio Liberty, 202 obshchestvennost’ in, 158–62 ration cards, 110 Peredvizhniki, 8, 17, 20–2, 24–8, Red Cross, 64 32n58, 33n70 Red Square, 205–6, 213 Perestroika, 221 reproductive health, see women’s pluralism, 10, 83, 96, 98 reproductive health Poles (Polish), 23, 68, 207 residence, 109–24, 162 Poriadok, 18, 25 Revolution positive liberty, 7 1905 Revolution, 4, 6, 9 Pravda, 85, 87–8 1917 Revolution, 2, 6, 80n72, premature birth, 136–7, 139, 141, 219–20 149n32 and idea of obshchestvennost’, 72–5 principle of spontaneity, 156–8, 165, ‘Revolution from above’, 99–103 169n26 Russian museum of His Imperial prival’noe, 36–7, 39, 55n15 Majesty Alexander III, 27 Progressives, 66–7 Russkaia mysli, 24 Provisional Government, 72–4 Russkaia rech, 22 public Russkie vedomosti, 23 identity, 3–6 Russkiy vestnik, 18 opinion, 1, 3, 9–10, 16, 36, 42, 47–8, 53, 86, 153, 173, 199, 202, Samizdat Archive, 198 204, 206, 212–14, 219 samizdat documents, 198, 201–2, and private, 12, 171–91 213–14

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Subject Index 233 samokritika (self-criticism), 97, 101 Presidium of, 154–9, 161–2, 166 self-managed canteens of the RSFSR, 155–9, 161–2, 166, (samodeiatel’naia stolovaia), 109, 174 119–23, 126n29 of the USSR, 154, 161 self-organisation, 4, 36, 54 sel’kor, 87, 90–1, 93, 96–8, 100, terror, 79n50, 102, 213 106n68 The Times, 204 Severnyi vestnik, 18, 25 trade union, 4, 42, 47, 54, 82, 89–90, Siniavsky-Daniel trial, 200, 202, 213 100–2, 161, 175–6, 180–1, 186, smychka (union), 100 188–9, 211 sociability (sociabilité), 34–54 transfer of the state functions, 155 formal, 35–6, 48, 53–4 Trial of the Four, 198, 206, 211, informal, 9, 35–6, 39, 41, 47, 53 216n29 social agency, 2 Tsarist regime, 76, 83 social identity, 4, 14n12 TsKK (Central Control Committee), socially active groups, 2 96 social organisations, 1, 11, 42, 45, 58n70, 83, 95, 101 udarniki (shock workers), 101 Soviet citizens, 11–12, 95, 102, 128, Ukrainians, 67–8, 209 130, 137, 152, 172–3, 175, 178, Union of Liberation, 47–9, 53, 59n79, 199, 207, 218n55 59n84 Soviet democracy, see democracy Union of Towns (All-Russian Union of Soviet dissidents, 12, 198–214, 215n9, Towns), 63, 68, 70 217n37, 219–21 Union of Unions, 52 Soviet (sovetskaia) obshchestvennost’, Union of Zemstvos (All-Russian 5–6, 10–12, 62, 76–7, 82–103, Union of Zemstvos for the Relief 123–4, 153, 166, 167n4, 190, of the Sick and Wounded), 63–6, 198–9, 210–12, 221, 223 71 Soviet public, see public Soviet Russia, 2, 6, 89, 99, 103, 171, Vechernee vremia, 23 219 Vestnik Evropy, 18, 24 Sovremennik, 18, 20 Voice of America (VOA), 202, 209, spryski, 36–7 214, 218n55 St. Petersburgskie vedomosti, 18 voluntarism, 84, 97, 158 Stalin Constitution, 123 voluntary associations (organisation, Stalinism, 13, 102–3, 123, 130, society), 1, 4–5, 9, 16, 35–6, 39, 211, 219 46, 82–4, 86–8, 96, 128, 146, 154, Stalinist culture, 102 156 Stalinist project, 10 Stalinist regime, 11, 103, 110, 123 War-Industrial Committee, 63–4 state-society relations, 5, 12, 152, 220 White Book, 202 strategy, 4–5, 10, 99 withering away of the State, 5, 85–6, struggle against 101, 153, 171 crimes, 152–67 women’s reproductive health, 135–9, hooliganism, 166 142, 148n26 violations of public order, 153, 160 world public (mirovaia subjectivisation, 127n48 obshchestvennost’), 12, Supreme Soviet 198–200, 203, 206, 212–14, decree of, 161 216n30, 221

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–54722–4 234 Subject Index

Writers & Scholars International ZhAKTy, 10–11, 110, 121, (WSI), 217n37 123–4 cultural work under, 114–19 Young Communist League (Komsomol), in Moscow in 1931–1937, 102, 156, 158, 161, 188 111–14 role in administrative work, 110, Zemskii Sobor, 3 112 Zemstvo Congress, 3, 48–9, 52 zhdanovshchina, 144–5 zemstvo liberals, 48–9