We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2016
Most of the major historical interpretations of imperial and Soviet Russia share, at bottom, a common belief that the dominant characteristics of the political system are teleological and dualist, indeed even Manichaean. The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative model of politics based on a plurality of groups emerging from the peculiar evolution of the bureaucracy in Imperial Russia. Before taking up the substantive part of the argument, however, I wish to review briefly what I mean by the teleological-dualist interpretation which remains up to the present the reigning orthodoxy in the field.
1 Kennan, George, Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin (Boston, 1961), 4Google Scholar.
2 Nechkina, M. V., ed., Revoliutsionnaia situatsiia v Rossii v 1859-61 gg., 4 vols. (Moscow, 1968-74)Google Scholar.
3 Starr, S. Frederick, Decentralization and Self-Government in Russia, 1830-1870 (Princeton, 1972)Google Scholar; Zaionchkovskii, P. A., Krizis samoderzhaviia na rubezhe 1870-1880 godov (Moscow, 1964)Google Scholar; and idem, Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie v kontse XIX stoletiia (Moscow, 1970)Google Scholar.
4 Pinter, Walter M., “The Social Characteristics of the Early Nineteenth Century Bureaucracy,” The Slavic Review, 29:3 (September 1970), 429–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 For a definition of territorial culture group see Benson, Lee, Toward the Scientific Study of History (Philadelphia, 1972), 207Google Scholar.
6 Raeff, Marc, “In the Imperial Manner,” in Raeff, Marc, ed., Catherine the Great: A Profile (1972), 197–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Rieber, A. J., “The Formation of La Grande Société des chemins de fer russes,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 21:3 (1973), 375–91Google Scholar.
8 Wortman, Richard, The Emergence of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Ransel, David L., The Politics of Catherinian Russia (New Haven, 1975), 1–8, 39ffGoogle Scholar.
10 Chapman, Brian, The Prefects and Provincial France (London, 1955)Google Scholar; Hough, Jerry, The Soviet Prefects: The Local Party Organs in Industrial Decision-Making (Cambridge, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Armstrong, John, The European Administrative Elite (Princeton, 1973), 24, 253–60Google Scholar.
11 Rieber, A. J., The Politics of Autocracy (The Hague, 1966)Google Scholar.
12 Raeff, Marc, Michael Speransky, Statesman of Imperial Russia (The Hague, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and idem, Siberia and the Reforms of 1822 (Seattle, 1956)Google Scholar.
13 Pipes, Richard, “The Russian Military Colonies 1810-1831, “ Journal of Modern History, 22 (Septmeber 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Byrnes, Robert F., Pobedonostsev: His Life and Thought (Bloomington, 1968), 174Google Scholar.
15 Lincoln, Bruce, “The Genesis of an ‘Enlightened’ Bureaucracy in Russia, 1825-1856,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 20:3 (September 1972), 321–30Google Scholar and Rieber, A. J., “The FormationGoogle Scholar.”
16 Wortman, Richard, “Power and Responsibility in the Upbringing of the Nineteenth Century Tsar,” Group for the Use of Psychology in History Newsletter, 4:4 (March 1976)Google Scholar.
17 Rieber, A. J., “The Moscow Entrepreneurial Group: The Emergence of a New Form in Autocratic Politics,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 25:1 (1977), 1–20Google Scholar.
18 Gindin, I. F., Shepelev, L. E., “Bankovskie monopolii v Rossii nakanune Velikoi Oktiabr’skoi sotsialisticheskoi revoliutsii,” Istoricheskie Zapiskii, 66 (1960), 20–95Google Scholar.
