Francine Hirsch. Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. 367 S. $27.95, paper, ISBN 978-0-8014-8908-2. Reviewed by Mara Kozelsky Published on H-Nationalism (April, 2007) The frst Soviet census in 1926 was a collabo‐ Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge rative exercise between Soviet leaders, ethnogra‐ and the Making of the Soviet Union begins at the phers, regional and local elites, and the mass of turn of the twentieth century (1905) and ends citizens being counted. It took months to accom‐ with World War II. Throughout, it traces the coop‐ plish, following years of debate. Well before cen‐ eration between ethnographers, geographers, and sus takers appeared in remote Soviet villages, anthropologists with the state in the creation of ethnographers predicted that no set rubric could Soviet identity. She offers rich anecdotes through‐ categorize the Soviet Union's various peoples, for out, detailing individual responses to their ab‐ those in the West identified themselves in nation‐ sorption into group identities not of their choos‐ al terms, those in Central Asia by religion, and ing. Hirsch borrows from Bernard Cohn, Benedict those in Siberia mostly by tribe. Still others self- Anderson, and a host of other scholars of Euro‐ identified by city (Vladimirian or Kostromian) or pean nationalism to frame her analysis around by economic status, such as the Teptiar, a term de‐ the "cultural technologies of rule"--the map, cen‐ noting a tenant in Bashkir (p. 113). Most Soviet cit‐ sus, and museum. The book makes an outstanding izens, census takers bemoaned, were too back‐ contribution to the feld and has been recognized ward to place themselves within a natsional'nost in Russian and Eastern European Studies by the (nationality) or even narodnost' (which roughly Wayne S. Vucinich Book Prize in 2006, and it was translates to ethnicity), much less capable of un‐ a co-recipient of the European Studies book prize. derstanding the distinctions between the two. In As the above suggests, Hirsch's work has the abili‐ the end, census takers formed 191 different naro‐ ty to cross over from Russia area studies to offer dnosti for the census. Ten years later under insights to scholars interested in nationalism else‐ Joseph Stalin, that number shrank to 62. Francine where. Hirsch explains how in just over a decade, the So‐ Hirsch's study of the "cultural technologies of viet Union lost nearly 130 peoples. rule," is in itself nothing new--scholars have been H-Net Reviews investigating social sciences and identity con‐ tion toward socialism. The Soviets believed that struction for quite some time. Nor is her challenge they could speed forward the nation building to the "prison of peoples" thesis that had long process, just as NEP (New Economic Policy) was to dominated Soviet studies terribly earth-shatter‐ speed Russia through the advanced stage of capi‐ ing, for revisionist history in the last decades has talism, the necessary precursor to communism. already shown that the Soviet state was not mono‐ Consequently, these forward looking Soviet offi‐ lithic, and that the masses of the Soviet citizens to cials supported a "double assimilation": citizens some degree or another participated in the were assimilated into nations at the same time process of rule. Thus, it is her fndings about the that they were assimilated into the Soviet Union. construction of Soviet identities that are most illu‐ Ethnographers assisted the state in this process by minating and thought-provoking. Most striking, counting and grouping peoples. Yet how to define perhaps, is her analysis of "state-sponsored evolu‐ Soviet peoples was not immediately clear. Should tionism" and the struggle between Revolutionary they prioritize race, ethnicity, religion, language, Soviet ideology and European nationalism, two or byt, a word that translates roughly to "way of strains of thought that ushered the formation of life?" the Soviet Socialist Republics. Numerous theories were also put forward When the Soviets consolidated power in the about structuring the new territory. The two wake of the Revolution and the subsequent Civil greatest contenders were those advanced by Gos‐ War, they were confronted with the challenging plan (State Planning Commission) and Narkom‐ task of organizing the diverse territory of the for‐ nats (People's Commissariat for the Affairs of Na‐ mer Russian empire into a new state. Not only tionalities) both of which employed social scien‐ were there peoples of different languages, reli‐ tists. The two bureaucracies represented different gions, ethnicities, and tribes, but, as Lenin re‐ versions of Marxist-Leninist ideology (that at marked, peoples of the Soviet Union existed at dif‐ times competed, and at others cooperated), ad‐ ferent economic stages. They ranged from those vancing the Soviet Union on principles of econom‐ in the East who were still in the "feudal era," to ic planning or regional self-determination. those in the West who were at "developing stages Narkomnats, the mapping wing of the Soviet of capitalism" (p. 64). Officials recognized that Union staffed typically by scholars who often had Tsarist boundaries had long exceeded their utility liberal and not Bolshevik leanings, insisted upon and investigated ways to reorganize borders and ethnographic principles for organizing the new peoples more efficiently. Following Lenin's lead, state. In most cases, Narkomnats advocated the Soviet officials sought ways to move all peoples to autonomy of nationalities. Narkomnats also the same economic level, a civilizing mission strongly insisted throughout its existence that So‐ which Hirsch maintains was undertaken with viet citizens had the right to choose their own na‐ greater sincerity than by Western colonial powers tionality, a necessity for peoples who typically had that tended to create gaps between colonizers and mixed parentage, multiple tongues, and distant colonized. homelands. Hirsch creates the term "State-sponsored evo‐ In contrast, Gosplan, which was the econom‐ lutionism" to describe the Soviet concept of na‐ ic-planning organ of the state, insisted that the So‐ tionality. "State-sponsored evolutionism," accord‐ viet Union be organized strictly along economic ing to Hirsch, was based on the Marxist-Leninist principles. Officials at Gosplan argued that dis‐ belief that nation formation and national con‐ tinctions among Soviet peoples were more eco‐ sciousness constituted a crucial stage in the evolu‐ nomic than ethnic. In contrast to Western (and 2 H-Net Reviews later Nazi) thinking that blamed "backwardness" fact, many ethnographers who provided the Revo‐ upon innate racial or biological traits, Gosplan lutionary government with maps, careful analysis (and Soviets in general), believed that "all peoples of populations, and the 1926 Census themselves could 'evolve' and thrive in new Soviet condi‐ became victims. Ethnographers who conducted tions" (p. 9). Consequently, Gosplan advocated di‐ the second Soviet census (but the frst "census un‐ viding the Soviet Union not into ethnographic ad‐ der socialism") in the 1930s were under duress, ministrative units, but large economic units that just as any other Soviet bureaucrat, to prove that emphasized regions' potential productivity. For Stalin's predictions about socialism in one country example, ofcials redrew imperial borders and di‐ had actually transpired. vided present-day Ukraine into the "Southern In 1936, Stalin gave a speech announcing that Mining Region," and the "South Western (Agricul‐ the Soviet Union had achieved socialism in one tural) Region" (p. 77). Ultimately, the Soviet state country: collectivization, industrialization, and settled on a compromise between Gosplan and the assimilation of "smaller peoples into larger Narkomnats, "a program of intensive economic peoples." He shocked ethnographers when he de‐ development" coupled with the promotion of na‐ scribed the Soviet Union as consisting of "sixty na‐ tionhood. This position was advocated by Stalin, tions, national groups and narodnosti." With the then the Commissar of Nationalities (p. 96). preparations for the Soviet Union's second census Over time, the early compromise between (the frst under socialism) underway, ethnogra‐ Narkomnats and Gosplan produced an awkward phers had to quickly realign their research. Using map of the internal regions of the Soviet Union, a Stalin's 1913 definition of nationality as their ra‐ map which continues to haunt the territory after tionale, Soviet ethnographers had to show that in‐ the Soviet Union's collapse. Ultimately, the Soviet deed, the 191 narodnosti listed in the 1926 census Union was broken into 53 units divided between had amalgamated into approximately sixty peo‐ 15 SSSrs, 20 Autonomous Republics, 8 Autono‐ ples. The significance of official categories of iden‐ mous Provinces, and 10 Autonomous Regions, a tity was immense, for groups excluded from the division that makes little sense in the twenty-first list of nationalities were also excluded from state century, particularly to the many peoples forced support for languages, education, and building. into alliances they would not choose for them‐ After much debate and rejected plans by Mos‐ selves. In fact, much of the discord in the post-So‐ cow elites, ethnographers managed to produce a viet era has been an effort to shake free of old So‐ list of Soviet populations that complied with Stal‐ viet boundaries. Nevertheless, Hirsch's volumi‐ in's statement. They did so by combining groups nous research on the stages of debate between that shared several, but not all, traits. For exam‐ Gosplan, Narkomnats, and other state bureaucra‐ ple, some ethnographers combined the Muslim cies shows that organizing the vast Soviet territo‐ Ajars with Christian Georgians, arguing that these ry was no easy job and, at least in the 1920s, peoples lived in the same geographic region, evoked sincere debate about how to administer spoke the same language, and that under social‐ the space in ways most beneficial to citizens. ism "ancient religious differences" had become ir‐ Good intentions came to an end with the as‐ relevant (p.