1 Caitlin Jamison Coups, Revolutions, and Massacres: The Winter Palace as a Symbol of Power Introduction On 28 June 1762, Catherine the Great set off from her summer residence of Peterhof to execute one of the greatest power transitions of Imperial Russia. After years of secretly cultivating loyalties and support, Catherine the Great began her procession through St. Petersburg to assume the throne and unseat her husband in a bloodless coup. Her final destination was the Winter Palace, where her court and army swore oaths of loyalty to her. Later, she paraded her son and successor on the balcony of the Winter Palace for the whole city to witness (Alexander, 7-8). If not bloodless, Catherine’s coup was certainly symbolic. Simply by approaching and entering a single building, Catherine was able to declare to all of Russia that she was now in full control of all civil and political authority. For over three hundred years, the Winter Palace has served as a symbol to the people of Russia and the world. On the individual, national, and international level, the Winter Palace represents power. Definitions The term “represent” has three relevant definitions that relate the Winter Palace to power. The first definition is “to act as a symbolic sign… for (a person or thing)” (“Represent.” Def. I.3.b). The second definition is “to symbolize (something abstract or intangible…)” (“Represent.” Def. I.3.a). The third is “to serve as a representative example...” (“Represent.” Def. I.5.a). 2 While the term “power” can take on many meanings in different contexts, there are three relevant definitions that define what the Winter Palace represents. The first definition is “the ability to… produce an effect” (“Power.” Def. 1.a). The second is “possession of control [and] authority...” (“Power.” Def. 2.a). The third is “political… influence” (“Power.” Def. 3.c). The Winter Palace as a Symbolic Sign of Power The Winter Palace acts as a symbolic sign of the tsar and his power over the individual. As the supreme head of a state, the tsar wields the ability to produce an effect at the individual level. Sociologist Michael Mann explains this level of despotic power over the individual. Mann asserts that “infrastructural power” is “the capacity of the state to actually penetrate civil society, and to implement logistically political decisions throughout the realm” (Mann, 185-213). Furthermore, he argues that “the greater the state's infrastructural power, the greater the volume of binding rule-making, and therefore the greater the likelihood of despotic power over individuals” (Mann, 185-213). Mann states that tsarist regimes hold a high level of infrastructural power, and therefore have a large despotic influence over individuals. Imperial Russia falls under Mann’s category of a tsarist regime. Therefore, the tsar of Russia held a strong influence over the individual citizens of Russia and was able to execute “binding rule-making” (Mann, 185-213), which granted him despotic power over the citizens. As the main residence of the royal family, the Winter Palace acted as the symbol of the tsar himself, and by extension, his power. The tsar held audiences of his imperial court in the Winter Palace, held grand balls, and saw soldiers off to war from the palace’s interior 3 balcony. Most notably, the tsar made autocratic decrees from the palace, legislation that affected individual Russian citizens. The tsars and tsarinas ruled Russia from the throne of the Winter Palace for more than three hundred years, and the aristocrats and peasants alike became conditioned to view the Winter Palace as the symbol of tsar and his ability to change their lives. Over the centuries of tsarist rule, no event better reveals how the Winter Palace symbolizes the power the tsar wields over the individual than the Bloody Sunday massacre. Frustrated by a deprivation of basic civil rights and liberties, such as the “freedom of speech, assembly, and religion,” Russian citizens, lead by Father Gapon, marched peacefully to the Winter Palace (Lieven, 629-630), hoping to express their grievances to their tsar- batiushka, who they believed would take care of them. However, the tsar was simply residing in a different place at the time and was unable to receive the petition as the citizens expected. Instead, government officials who misread the situation and did not wait for the tsar’s distant orders that were given too late, ordered troops to fill the streets and Palace Square to keep the peace and address what seemed to be a threat. At the sight of the huge crowd, the troops panicked and opened fire on the citizens, killing around 200 (Hosking, 336). Thinking it was the tsar who ordered the open fire in front of the Winter Palace, the people of Russia believed the tsar had turned on them, spurring the revolution (Lieven, 629-630). The people marched to deliver the petition to the tsar because they recognized that he held the power and ability to change their rights and liberties. They chose to march to the Winter Palace specifically because they expected the tsar to be there. That expectation stemmed from the Winter Palace as a symbol of the tsar and his power because the tsar directed government proceedings from the Winter Palace. 4 The ensemble of Palace Square imparts a feeling of the sovereignty and power that the tsar held over the Russian citizens. The main features of the ensemble include the Winter Palace, the General Staff Building, and the Alexander Column. The Winter Palace dominates the ensemble and seemingly presides over the vast square as the tsar presided over the vast country and its citizens. The sheer size and grandeur of the building in contrast with the size of people standing in the sweeping square creates a sense of subjugation and diminutiveness (see appendix, photos 1-3). This contrast and the feelings it evokes enhance the symbolism of the Winter Palace as a source of power and dominance over Russian citizens. The Winter Palace as a Symbol of Control and Authority The Winter Palace symbolizes control and authority on a national level. Throughout history, the Winter Palace played a critical symbolic role in the possession of institutionalized power in Russia. Political scientist Dr. Kira Petersen contends that institutionalized power is “the generalized capacity to govern an existing political order” (Petersen, 14). More specifically, she describes it as “the capacity to implement decisions, enforce rules, provide essential collective goods and achieve collective goals” (Petersen, 14). Both Imperial and Soviet Russia operated on institutionalized power. This type of political authority was wielded by the tsars and tsarinas, the Provisional Government in 1917, and the Soviet regime to govern the political order of Russia. Though it is no longer the governing residence, the Winter Palace still embodies the possession of institutionalized power and political authority as the main residence of the governing body of Russia. From the Winter Palace, the tsar implemented decisions and 5 enforced rules. The Provisional Government sought to provide collective goods and worked to achieve collective goals from their seat in the palace. As political authority shifted OVeR time, the Winter Palace remained one of the major seats of power in the country, and thus became a representation of institutionalized power and authority. The October Revolution exemplifies the Winter Palace as a symbol of political control and authority. On 7 November 1917, Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks, ordered the Red Army to take numerous government buildings around St. Petersburg that the Provisional Government occupied. The only building left in the hands of the Provisional Government was the Winter Palace. Meanwhile, Lenin stalled the Second Congress of Soviets, hoping not to start until the ministers of the Provisional Government had been arrested. Later that evening, while the Bolshevik forces stormed the Winter Palace, the Congress of Soviets finally commenced and the Bolsheviks gave the floor to their socialist opponents as Lenin waited for the news that the Winter Palace was under Bolshevik control. Once the Winter Palace had fallen, Lenin moved forward with his decrees and ultimately declared control over Russia (Pipes, 145-147). During the October Revolution, the Winter Palace played a pivotal role in the transfer of political control of Russia. The fact that it was the main seat of the Provisional Government, and the last and most difficult building to take from the Provisional Government proves that it symbolized the Provisional Government's institutional control of Russia’s political order. Lenin clearly recognized the Winter Palace’s significance in representing possession of political power of Russia’s ruling regime, which is why he chose to wait until the Bolsheviks had taken control of it before revealing his revolutionary decrees. He knew that control of Russia’s symbol of political 6 authority was necessary before declaring possession of Russia itself and the deposition of the Provisional Government. The Winter Palace as an Example of Russian Influence The Winter Palace serves as a representative example of Russia’s international political influence. The Winter Palace lies at the heart of St. Petersburg, a city built to facilitate Russia’s emergence onto the international state as a great power. Political scientist Martin Wight defines a great power as a country “with general interests, i.e., whose interests are as wide as the states-system itself…” (Wight, 50). Wight distinguishes great powers from other states based on the state’s “expansion of a european practice of diplomacy and international relations” (Bisley, 8). Russia has sought this great power status on the international stage for centuries, and achieved it during the 20th century. When St. Petersburg was founded as the new capital of Russia, Peter the Great strove to incorporate European practices into Russian life in order to transform Russia into a great power that would be able to contend with the interests and goals of the Western European states system.