Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the problems of historical study of social role of the nobility and the state as collective actors in the 18th century in Russia. As a rule, histori-ans are constructing the collective actors on the basis of presumably group belongings or on the basis of presumably shared group interests. The notion about struggle of interests between the collective actors is fundamental for the most of explanatory models in political history. Analyzing the basic concepts of the present-day historiography, the author shows that the references to the significant collective actors could not be verified in the majority of cases: the "nobility" appears, in fact, as a set of fragmented territorial corporate groups, while the "state" was usually represented in practice by the narrow circle of the central elite or even by the lonesome figure of the Emperor hypothetically having knowledge of the valid interest of the "state". In addition, both the nobility and the state bureaucracy were overlapping each other, since in the most of situations the nobles were leading the bureaucratic institu-tions, especially at the top of the Imperial hierarchy. The author points at the communicative character of the political process, which means that the large collective actors were in fact the rhetoric figures, who were consti-tuted within the framework of political communication of the relatively narrow groups of elite. The final conclusion is that both "state" and "nobility" might not be seen as the actors, but rather as the rhetorical figures, which were used by the certain groups of elite to implement their political practices.

The article analyzes the elements of classical republicanism in the key texts of the late period of Catherine the Great's Russia: A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow by Alexander Radishchev and Vadim of Novgorod by Yakov Knyazhnin. The major elements of the republican style in both texts are the figures of Cato and Brutus, the recognition of the military power of republics, the apology of struggle against tyranny and of heroic suicide. This style of political reasoning contributes to the formation, in the texts by Radishchev and Knyazhnin, of a new republican concept of political liberty conceived as a specific manner of public behavior and the rejection of potential arbitrary rule. ; Анализируются элементы классического республиканизма в ключевых текстах поздней екатерининской России – «Путешествии из Петербурга в Москву» А. Н. Радищева и «Вадиме Новгородском» Я. Б. Княжнина. Основными элементами республиканского стиля, используемого в обоих текстах, выступают образы Катона и Брута, признание военной мощи республик, апология тираноборчества и героического самоубийства. Подобный стиль рассуждений о политике формирует в текстах Радищева и Княжнина новое (республиканское) – понимание политической свободы как специфической манеры публичного поведения и отсутствия потенциального произвола.

This paper analyses the political thought of Feofan Prokopovich in the context of emergence of Russian monarchism. The author studies the whole complex of Feofan's writings, with an emphasis upon the most famous one of them, i.e. Pravda Voli Monarshei. The author strives to demonstrate that political philosophy of Pravda Voli Monarshei did not contain an unsolvable contradiction between the proclaimed absolute obedience of the subjects and the recognition of God as a source of any political power as Feofan never excluded Divine Providence from the list of actual political factors. Feofan's later writings show the importance of Augustinian providentialism for the whole system of Feofan's political ideas. This point is illustrated by means of comparison with J. Bossuet, the leading French preacher of the second half of the seventeenth century, who was writing under the strong influence of St. Augustine. Feofan's providentialism, which postulates God as a source of any power, cannot be reduced (as L. Erren did) to the simple notion of covering up some sort of system of political election. However, Feofan was rather reluctant to deploy the providential arguments in the years of Peter's reign and became much more willing to do so under Peter's successors. The author concludes that the intellectual tools of political theology included not only providentialism but also the cult of a Godly monarch, which to a certain degree contradicted the providential understanding of politics. The author considers the complicated interaction of these intellectual tools to be equally important to the interaction of providentialism and the theory of social contract which was presented in Pravda Voli Monarshei. ; Статья посвящена анализу политической мысли Феофана Прокоповича в контексте формирования российского монархизма. Автор рассматривает сочинения Феофана в комплексе, делая акцент на самой известной из работ — «Правде воли монаршей». Автор доказывает, что политическая философия «Правды воли монаршей» не содержала в себе неразрешимого противоречия между предписываемым подданным абсолютным повиновением и признанием того, что источником власти является Бог, поскольку Феофан считал Провидение актуальным фактором власти. Более поздние сочинения Феофана показывают, что чрезвычайно важное место в его политической мысли занимал провиденциализм августиновского толка. Иллюстрацией этого тезиса служит сравнение идей Феофана с идеями крупнейшего французского проповедника 2-й половины XVII в. Ж. Боссюэ, писавшего под влиянием теологии Августина. Провиденциализм Феофана, предполагавший, что источником власти является Бог, нельзя свести (как это делает Л. Эррен) к маскировке политической системы, основанной на своеобразных выборах. Вместе с тем, Феофан весьма ограниченно использовал аргументацию провиденциалистского толка при Петре I и куда активнее — при его наследниках. Это, по мнению автора настоящей статьи, можно объяснить тем, что интеллектуальный инструментарий политического богословия включал не только провиденциализм, но и культ божественного монарха, вступавший в противоречие с провиденциалистским взглядом на политику. Сложное взаимодействие этих интеллектуальных инструментов автор считает не менее важным, чем взаимодействие между провиденциализмом и теорией общественного договора, представленной в «Правде воли монаршей».

The article analyses an issue related to the methods underlying the study of the political thought and — broader — the political culture in 18th century Russia. The author examines the methods of the "Cambridge school" of political history, which is represented by the works of Q. Skinner and J. G. A. Pocock, and estimates the possibilities of using these methods upon Russian soil. Combining Skinners' conception of "cultural lexicons" with the research ideas of M. M. Bakhtin (the theory of speech genres), the author considers the opportunity to study 18th century Russian political thought through the specification of certain communicative spheres — the court sphere and the public sphere. In the author's opinion, the character of the political debate in each communicative sphere was defined by the relations between the addresser and the addressee within the process of communication. The court sphere was dominated by the panegyric, the manifesto and the report, which were all aimed at talking over different aspects of the absolutist vision of politics. In its turn, the public sphere, which started developing in the mid-18th century — a domain of book and journal publishers — was a space suitable for the formation of alternative political discourses (including republican political thinking). In conclusion, the author suggests a reform of the history of political culture to make it a history of individual authors, talking about politics in different communicative spheres, using certain concepts to achieve pragmatic purposes, while simultaneously staying within the bounding context of a "cultural lexicon". ; В статье рассматривается вопрос о методах изучения политической мысли и — шире — политической культуры в России XVIII в. Автор анализирует методы и подходы «кембриджской школы» интеллектуальной истории, представленной трудами Кв. Скиннера и Дж. Покока, а также оценивает возможности применения этих методов к изучению российской истории. Комбинируя кембриджскую концепцию «культурных глоссариев» с исследовательскими концепциями Бахтина (теория речевых жанров), автор выдвигает идею об изучении политической мысли российского XVIII в. на основании выделения коммуникативных сфер — придворной и публичной. По мнению автора, характер политических дебатов, разворачивавшихся в каждой из этих коммуникативных сфер, определялся спецификой взаимоотношений адресата и адресанта в каждой из них. Придворная сфера оставалась пространством доминирования таких текстов, как панегирик, манифест и доклад, посвященных обсуждению различных аспектов абсолютистского понимания политики. В свою очередь, формирующаяся с середины XVIII в. публичная коммуникативная сфера — пространство журналов и книгоиздания — была зоной, в которой могли развиваться альтернативные политические дискурсы (в том числе — республиканский). В заключение автор предлагает переформатировать историю политической культуры как историю индивидуальных авторов, ведущих политический разговор в тех или иных коммуникативных сферах, применяя определенные понятия для достижения прагматических целей, оставаясь в рамках ограничивающего контекста «культурного лексикона».

The article deals with the issue of the exclusive social status, which was granted to the Russian nobility in the 18th century, in the context of transformations of Russian elite's perception of the state and society. The adaptation of the European glossary of forms of rule in 18th century Russia contributed to the formation of a secular vision, in which the power of the state was determined by a set of social factors. Thus, the contribution of the nobility as a social group to the power of monarchy, the 'common good', became the key argument in favor of the nobility's exclusive status since the mid-18th century. However, the analysis of the debates in the Legislative Commission of 1767–1768 allows the author to conclude that such a transformation was experienced mostly by the narrow group of administrative and court elite. Therefore, the exclusive status of the nobility was not a result of pressure from the consolidate noble social group, but a result of a transformation in the Russian elite's vision of the role and place of the nobility in the Russian Empire. ; В статье рассматривается вопрос о наделении российского дворянства XVIII в. исключительным социальным статусом в контексте изменения представлений российской элиты о государстве и обществе. Адаптация европейского глоссария форм правления сформировала в XVIII в. секулярную перспективу, в которой мощь государства определялась набором социальных факторов. В данной связи ключевым аргументом в пользу исключительного статуса дворянства с середины XVIII в. стал вклад данной социальной группы в поддержание могущества монархии – дворянское «усердие» в службе на «общее благо». При этом анализ дебатов в Уложенной комиссии 1767–1768 гг. позволяет утверждать, что трансформация представлений о роли и месте дворянства в государстве коснулась относительно узкого слоя административно-придворной элиты. Таким образом, наделение дворянства исключительным статусом оказалось не итогом давления со стороны консолидированного дворянства, но результатом изменений в представлениях российской элиты о роли и месте дворянства в Российской империи.

The conference brought together over 100 Russian and international scholars. They discussed issues of fundamental importance for understanding Russia's economic development in the imperial, Soviet and post-Soviet periods. These include features of Russian modernizations, the role of institutional, sociocultural and geopolitical factors in the choice of development strategies, the general and the special, continuity and gaps in the economic policy, the history of industry, the farming sector, transport, the financial system, regional development, living standards over time, etc. The discussion revealed fruitful complementary studies of economic processes at macro and micro levels, the need for a long-term perspective in understanding their vector in the context of the "biggest challenges".

The authors analyse a book on the concept of democracy by A. V. Magun, a specialist in political philosophy. In this book, the author traces the history of democracy as a key concept of the European political tradition, paying special attention to paradoxes in the Western understanding of democracy. Magun stresses the tension between the stability of liberal democracy in the modern era and the revolutionary, 'demonic' potential of democracy. According to the reviewers, the book could serve as a starting point for a deeper study of democracy as an integral concept of Russian political culture. However, such an analysis would require a shift in the focus from the Western canon (Aristotle – J. Locke – J. Rawls) to the works of Russian authors (from A. N. Radishchev to V. I. Lenin) who contributed to the emergence of intellectual paradigms of democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. In addition, the reviewers point out the problematic methodology behind the history of concepts. ; Рассмотрена работа специалиста в области политической философии А. В. Магуна, посвященная понятию «демократия». Автор книги прослеживает историю демократии как одного из важнейших понятий европейской политической традиции, обращая внимание на ряд парадоксов, характерных для его западного понимания. А. В. Магун отмечает напряжение между стабильностью либерального демократизма Новейшего времени и революционным, «демоническим» потенциалом, исторически присущим демократии. По мнению рецензентов, книга может послужить отправной точкой для более глубокого анализа бытования демократии как важного концепта российской политической культуры, однако для этого следует перенести центр внимания с западного канона (Аристотель – Дж. Локк – Дж. Роулз) на творчество российских авторов (от А. Н. Радищева до В. И. Ленина), внесших вклад в формирование интеллектуальных парадигм демократии в XIX–XX вв. При этом рецензенты поднимают ряд методологических проблем, связанных с созданием исследования в духе истории понятий.

This paper examines the history of the largest units of the aviation materials industry (processing of light alloys), i.e. heavy-duty hydraulic presses with a power of more than 15,000 tons, which became the basis of the global aviation industry in the 1960s. The author traces the emergence of these units in the US and the USSR and describes the main centers of their deployment. Based on extensive materials from the media, the author scrutinizes the positioning of the technological equipment of the industry for the processing of light alloys in the public sphere of the USSR. The article demonstrates that in the 1950s, press-building was in the focus of attention of the Soviet public sphere as one of the key areas of scientific and technological development. However, starting with the late 1950s, materials on equipping enterprises for the processing of light alloys almost disappeared from the public domain. The second wave of public interest in the machines of the light alloy industry occurred in the late 1960s; it was associated with a general change in approaches to the positioning of the aviation industry of the USSR, and with the important international contract for the construction of a heavy-duty press in France. At this stage, the Novokramatorsk Heavy Machine-Building Plant turned out to be in the spotlight, while the Ural manufacturers and users of such machines continued to remain under a kind of veil of silence. Therefore, the unique equipment of light alloy processing enterprises in Verkhnyaya Salda and Kamensk-Uralsky, as well as the experience of the Ural Heavy Machine-Building Plant in designing and producing such equipment, did not get a place in the industrial mythology of the region, which makes it difficult to position them as valuable elements of the historical and cultural heritage of the Urals.

This paper deals with the historical and cultural heritage of an important industrial centre of the Urals, the city of Zlatoust, namely, its constructivist architecture which emerged during the age of the first five-year plans, and which remained out of researchers' view. The specifics of the urban process of the industrialisation age in older industrial settlements of the Urals was defined by the deployment of new constructivist buildings in the existing dense urban environment and in the proximity to production sites. The author describes two key locations of new construction in detail. In the old centre, around the Square of the Third International and along Lenin Street, the old dominants were demolished in the early 1930s (cathedral, Lutheran church) and replaced by new ones (club, bank, fire station, 4-storey residential buildings). In the northern part of the town, the residential zone was developed by the Zlatoust Steel Mill, which was heavily reconstructed in the early 1930s, its settlement had a peculiar planning (terraces on the steep slope of a mountain). Drawing upon archival sources, the author traces the process of planning and construction of key residential and public buildings of Zlatoust (factory kitchen, public bath), shows the peculiarities of urban development in the industrial settlement in the Urals, and outlines the projects of particular structures as well as the course of construction. In the second half of the 1930s, the urban development of Zlatoust was stagnating, and most projects from this period (House of Specialists, House of the Soviets) remained on paper. The author specially describes the housing policy of the Zlatoust Steel Mill. Also, he demonstrates that Zlatoust was a leader among the old (pre-revolutionary) industrial settlements in terms of construction, however, due to the outpacing population growth, administrative changes in the second half of the 1930s and the complex natural landscape, the social infrastructure of the city remained underdeveloped. That, in turn, provoked an acute shortage of housing and communal crises during the Great Patriotic War. The constructivist heritage of Zlatoust was incapable of becoming a cultural symbol of the city in the second half of the twentieth century, and even suffered major losses associated with both the expansion of industrial sites and the outflow of the population from the old part of the settlement.