Extended Essay in
History
Grade: A Points: 34/36
Note: This extended essay serves as an example essay that are meant for students in their work with their own extended essay. We hope that it may be used for identifying elements that are good to include in order to obtain the grade you strive for. Any plagiarism is forbidden
-0-
Noomi [lastname]
How and why did an Intelligentsia develop in Russia in the mid 19th century and what were the political effects?
Abstract The aim of this essay is to explain how and why an intelligentsia developed in Russia in the mid 19th century and what the effects were. The focus will be on outlining the background, rise and result of the literary intelligentsia. Some of the most important 19th century authors created their work in Russia during this period. It is often referred to as the great age of literature. This essay is mainly concerned with understanding the impact of literature and ideas in a nation under the pressure of inevitable change in social, economic and political structures. The essay will begin with presenting the background of the intelligentsia in order to explain why it arose at this particular time. This background will also include an account for the different political and philosophical discussions that shaped the works of the intelligentsia. Then the essay will discuss the outlets for opinion in Russia at this time and the development of literary and educational freedom during Alexander II’s rule. The last part of the essay will evaluate the intelligentsia’s impact on the oppositional movements arising in Russia during the same period. The intelligentsia never acquired any significant political power, and it took many years until the intellectuals could spread their messages to social groups outside of their own sphere. However, this essay will conclude that the works of the literary intelligentsia was the first and most important source of politically independent discussion in Russia in the 1860’s and that the intelligentsia made a crucial contribution in the process of awakening a political and literary awareness amongst the people. Word-count: 264
Noomi [lastname] [candidate number] [school] Word count: 3997
Noomi [lastname]
Table of contents
page
Introduction
1
Background and definition
2
Philosophy of the Intelligentsia
3
Outlets for opinion and education reforms
5
The direct and indirect impact of the Intelligentsia
6
Conclusion
7
Bibliography
9
Noomi [lastname]
How and why did an Intelligentsia develop in Russia in the mid 19th century and what were the political effects? Introduction The Russian novelist writers succeeded, only in a few decades, to produce some of the most important literature of modern times. Not only is the literature in itself remarkable, but also the circumstances under which it was created. Unlike Western Europe, Russia was not developing towards a constitutional democracy in the mid 19th century. Strict censorship and regulated education were important conditions for the survival of Tsardom. The masses of the people were peasants and workers and most of them were illiterate. They neither possessed the engagement nor the power necessary to question their situation. The landowning nobility was the only group privileged with the opportunity to get an education and develop an understanding of society. However, this education had its limitations; if the nobility questioned the system they risked loosing their status and very few of them were willing to take that risk. Hence, according to Pipes, no opposition was likely to form on the grounds of self-interest but rather from “motives more enlightened, farsighted and generous, such as sense of patriotism, social justice and personal self-respect”.1 The so called intelligentsia emerged during the 1840s but because of the harsh repression exercised by Nicholas I from 1848 to 1855, the period in which it flourished did not occur until Alexander II came to power. This period is often referred to as the Great age of literature. The word intelligentsia has many definitions, some of which will be explained further in the essay. Pipes description is of someone with an awareness of the society the person belongs to and a concern and willingness to work for the welfare of this society.2 The topic of the essay has been narrowed down to focus primarily on the literary branch of the intelligentsia and its impact on society. This is because the common definition includes so many branches and variations. Also, the term applies to such a long time-period; from as early as the 18th century and up until the communist takeover in 1917. It is very hard, if not impossible, to summarize the origin and result of all of these factions. The essay will discuss oppositional groups, but the focus will be primarily on how they were affected by the ideas of the intelligentsia. However, it is very difficult to distinguish between the literary intelligentsia and the activists, and to establish to what extent one influenced the other. The question of what effect the intelligentsia had on opposition is therefore hard to answer. As sources for this essay, both historical and literary works have been used. Richard Pipes’ “Russia under the old regime” contains very relevant analyses of complicated controversies. Pipes has a critical approach towards socialism and so his analysis of many ideas of the intelligentsia is slightly biased. However, he is very well-read and considered to be a highly qualified historian. Hosking’s “Russia People and Empire” and Saunders’ “Russia in the age of reaction and reform” are 1 2
Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime. Peregrine Books, Norwich, 1977. p251 Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime. p253
Noomi [lastname] more objective and Saunders is broader in scope. “The Cambridge history of Russian literature” provides in-depth analysis of literary trends and works. In addition, “Diary of a writer” by Fyodor Dostoevsky, gives a unique view of Russian society and culture, as seen by a contemporary Russian and member of the intelligentsia. This essay will first define the term intelligentsia and account for its background, also including an explanation of the main controversies within the intelligentsia. The essay will also outline the outlets for opinion for the intelligentsia and the changes brought about by Alexander II in education and freedom of press. The last part of the essay will be a discussion of the impact of these changes and how they led to the formation of reactionary movements. This essay will conclude that the spread of ideas and ideals in Russia was the first source of opposition and common awareness. Had there been a more open debate the ideas might have evolved to become more practical, but as it was they created a unique atmosphere of hopes and expectations among the people, and a critical disappointment in the government’s failure to act. This led to the formation of opposition-groups, all with different views on how to realize their visions. The European revolutions and the economic backwardness in Russia are part of the answer as to why there were major changes in Russian society. The role of the intelligentsia was to interpret and communicate these things, and thus to be the first to question the order. That is this essay’s answer to how and why an intelligentsia developed in Russia in the mid 19th century and what the effects were.
Background and definition The term intelligentsia has been used to describe many different intellectual groups throughout the recent centuries. To define the Russian intelligentsia is not an easy task. According to Pipes, there is one broad definition including all citizens with a higher education, and one narrow definition including only the revolutionaries, but neither is sufficient. Pipes definition is somewhere in between; “It employs as its touchstone the sense of commitment to public welfare”3, so the most important thing is to be concerned with and willing to work for the welfare of society. Thus it is not crucial to be educated, but Pipes also says that someone with an education “naturally is in a better position to understand what is wrong with his country”.4 Hosking describes the change of the use of the term during the 1860’s; “the term gradually lost any fixed socio-economic meaning and changed its tonality so that it became largely subjective, an indicator of socio-ethical attitudes”.5 He emphasizes the ideological element in the term and argues this to be the reason for the different meanings of the word from differing political outlooks. He also describes how many intellectuals defined themselves as “educated, intelligent, independent and critical of
3
Ibid. p253 ibid, p253 5 Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia – People and Empire. Harvard University Press, Cambrige Mass., 1997. p264 4
Noomi [lastname] mind, far-sighted, selfless and committed to a cause.”6 There are many more definitions of the Russian intelligentsia but these are the ones this essay will use. According to this definition, certain conditions must be fulfilled for an intelligentsia to emerge. In an open society where the public can contribute ideas and opinions to the decision-making power, an intelligentsia is not likely to form. In 19th century Russia on the other hand, there was a huge divergence between government and people. Russia was still very backwards in economy and government when Western Europe had its revolutions and breakthroughs, and even though western ideas were suppressed and banned, they had a great effect on the educated public which now felt that Russia was declining because of its stagnant system. Autocracy, serfdom and other institutions which were of crucial importance for maintaining the prevailing order were now questioned and even opposed by a small group of intellectuals believing to be representing and working for the public.
Philosophy of the Intelligentsia The topics and questions circulating in the discussions and writings of the intelligentsia are important in understanding what they wanted to achieve and what they actually did achieve. One thing must be clear; the intelligentsia was not a united front, there are several major political directions among them and most members had an individual and often very complex ideology. In the earlier part of the 19th century, the intellectuals started taking influence from German Idealism and philosophers such as Hegel and Shelling. Pipes’ writes that the intelligentsia did not actually understand these complicated philosophical theories but that they rather “extracted from them only what they needed”.7 What appealed to the Russians the most in this philosophy was the notion that mind and reality are of the same essence. This emphasized the power of thought and could be used to justify the intellectuals’ belief that only by thinking, they were altering reality. The German philosophy also raised the question of the nation’s importance in history. In the late 30’s and 40’s some events occurred which came to shape the future discussions of the intelligentsia. One of them was Chaadaev’s publication in 1836 of his “First philosophical letter”, in the journal “The Telescope”. Chaadaev wrote about Russia’s role in history and the world, or rather that Russia had no such role; “we have given nothing to the world, learnt nothing from the world and bestowed not a single idea upon the fund of human ideas”.8 The letter acted as a wake up call to the intelligentsia but was not appreciated by the government, which closed down “The telescope” the same year. However, the question of Russia’s national identity was also brought up by the government when in 1835 the Minister of Education, Uvarov, announced the official values of the regime as “Autocracy, Orthodoxy and
6
Hosking, Russia – People and Empire. p264 Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime. p259 8 Ibid, p271 7
Noomi [lastname] Nationality”.9 The meaning of Russian “Nationality” was not clear and it became the primary concern of the intelligentsia in the coming decades. Because of the gap between the people and the elite, the intelligentsia could not agree on whose’ culture was at the heart of Russian nationality. Most writers expressed a wish to unite with the people, they wanted to understand them as well as teach them. But they had different views of how this was to be accomplished and it was at this point that the intelligentsia divided into two camps; the Slavophiles and the Westernisers. The Slavophiles were the conservatives. They dismissed the Western ways and claimed that Russia as it had been before Peter the Great was the model for an ideal society. They glorified the peasant commune and advocated a sort of primitive socialism. Orthodoxy was also a very important part of the ideology. A nation without the spirituality it gained from religion was lost according to the Slavophiles, and Orthodoxy was believed to be the only true and pure form of Christianity. They wanted to return to the Russian soil and join the people and they believed that this future utopia would set the standard for the corrupt societies of Europe. The Slavophiles can be criticized on the grounds that their ideals were based on an unrealistic glorification of the Old Russian Empire. And although they condemned the West, their ideas originally came from Hegel and Shelling. According to Peace; “they were themselves the product of Western European culture”.10 The second camp was the Westernisers. They consisted of liberals with various ideological directions, and orthodox Christians as well as atheists. They emphasized the influence of Western culture on Russia but other than that, they were a very scattered group, as well as the Slavophiles. Many of them moved to Europe, temporarily or permanently, and came to believe that the only way Russia could be great again was through the adoption of Western thought. Some however, such as Herzen, saw the downsides of European society and changed views to become more Slavophile. As Saunders writes, it is often hard to draw the line between these two groups because they “sprang from the same stock”11 and based their beliefs on the same philosophies. Westernisers can be criticized for glorifying Europe as much as the Slavophiles glorified Russia; both groups had unrealistic ideals. In the 1860’s when literature, particularly the novel, came to have a more important role than before, new controversies were raised about the role of literature and the responsibility of the writers. Belinskii, a very influential literary critic, had earlier advocated the opinion that literature had to be critical towards the regime, and many shared his views that Russia as it was could not afford to have literature for its own sake because it was of such importance for public opinion and political change. It was the radicals who supported this view but they met resistance from the great writers such as Turgenev, Leskov, Goncharov and foremost Dostoevsky12. Dostoevsky could not see how literature should mainly be relevant for political purposes. In an article from 1861 he writes: “Beauty is useful because it is beauty, because in humanity there has always been a demand for beauty and its higher 9
Peace, Richard, The natural school and its aftermath. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. p191 Peace, The natural school and its aftermath. p232 11 Saunders, Russia in the age of reaction and reform. p163 12 Freeborn, Richard, The age of realism, 1855-80. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. p249 10
Noomi [lastname] ideal”13 and Chekov described it in more practical terms to a critic: “You desire me, in depicting horse thieves to say: horse-stealing is an evil. But this has been known for a long time without me. Let juries judge horse thieves. My job it is only to show what kind of people they are.”14 This conflict intensified as the radicals became more organized, and Pipes writes that in the end “it was not over aesthetics but over the freedom of the creative artist –and ultimately, that of every human being –to be himself”.15 When the reactionary Alexander III came to power in 1881, the age of literature stagnated. A return to the old repressive sentiments created a feeling of hopelessness and failure among intellectuals. There were still some achievements within art; Chekhov wrote his famous plays during this era. He commented on the prevailing shortage of inspiration: “We truly lack a certain something: If you lift up the skirts of our muse, all you see is a flat area”.16 Russia’s great age of literature was over and it did not return until after the turn of the century, and then it had taken a very different form.
Outlets for opinion and education reforms The intelligentsia members were provided with forums for discussion amongst themselves and later some became of importance for reaching out to the people. The most important source for the publication of literature was the journal. The journals usually had one section with literature and one news-section where controversial questions were discussed to the extent allowed by the censors. The journals had different ideological viewpoints; the most important radical journal was “The Contemporary” up until 1866 when it closed down. “The messenger of Europe” was the most important liberal journal and “The Russian Messenger” was the main conservative-nationalist journal. In it, important works by writers such as Dostoevky, Turgenev and Tolstoy were published.17 During the reign of Nicholas I, writers had a hard time publishing anything that was not to the advantage of the government. A few journals were closed down during this time but most of them knew their limits and acted with caution. The writers learned to write cryptic and subtle texts which were ambiguous and hard to censor and according to Saunders, the journal was still the closest Russia came to having a political debate in the mid 19th century.18 Sherman writes that the censorship did not stop the intelligentsia from debating but it prevented the debate from spreading to other social groups.19 When Alexander II came to power in 1855, he initiated major reforms in all sectors of Russian society, including the emancipation of the serfs (a question the intelligentsia wrote plenty about), the introduction of a new liberal judicial system 13
Freeborn, The age of realism, 1855-80. p261 Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime. p280 15 Ibid, p280 16 Connolly, Julian, Between realism and modernism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. p335 17 Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime. p264 18 Saunders, David, Russia in the age of reaction and reform. Longman, New York, 1992. p155 19 Sherman, Russell, Russia 1815-81, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 2002. p47 14
Noomi [lastname] and a local governing body called the zemstvo, which also became an outlet for opinion for many intellectuals, especially liberals. Russia’s role as a great power was deteriorating and Alexander thought he could strengthen Tsardom by reforming. However, the new liberal reforms had the opposite effect. The changes of censorship laws and education set off a development in the intelligentsia that Alexander had not foreseen. He abolished Nicholas I strict censorship committee and there was a gradual expansion of freedom of speech. This can be seen in the increase of the number of journals; in 1855 there were only about 15 journals but in 1860 the number had increased to 50 and in 1875 there were 70.20 This clearly shows that intellectuals were exited about the new regime and Tolstoy even wrote that “he who was not alive in the Russia of 1856 does not know what life is”.21 The universities underwent significant changes during this period. It is clear that the Tsar wanted to decrease the high illiteracy among peasants and workers and bring skilled people into administration. In the new University Regulations of 1863, entry quotas were skipped, the poor did not have to pay any fees, women were allowed in lectures and scholarly texts could be freely acquired from abroad and were excluded from all censorship.22 Also, subjects like West European law and History of philosophy were reintroduced. The composition of students was now more diverse and more commoners attended universities. The composition of professors changed drastically as well: 50% of the professors employed in 1854 had left their positions before the end of 1862.23 The new professors were radical and liberal and taught the students groundbreaking ideas in their lectures. Students also became more involved in student circles (Kruzhki). The student circle had played an important part in the development of the intelligentsia before 1855 as well but now it became a site for the formation of opposition groups and in the 60’s there were incidents of student unrest which led to later ongoing conflicts between students and the government. Private interests saw the potential of the Russian novels during Alexander’s rule. The freer press laws led to that publishers and philanthropists started printing cheap editions of the classic novels and made them accessible to poorer people and school teachers. These measures contributed to the emergence of a reading public among both workers and peasants. Thus, after 1855, Russian intellectual society underwent great changes and it is understandable that this created an excitement and eagerness which led to an increase in both quantity and quality of the intelligentsia’s work. However, this excitement also gave rise to the activist opposition, whose actions were not always supported by the literary intelligentsia.
20
Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime. p264 Saunders, Russia in the age of reaction and reform. p221 22 Sherman, Russell, Russia 1815-81. p82 23 Saunders, Russia in the age of reaction and reform. p250-51 21
Noomi [lastname] The direct and indirect impact of the Intelligentsia The literary Intelligentsia never united to form any major political front in the 19th century. Some authors engaged politically in more practical ways, but those attempts were individual and none achieved anything as important as the literature. The younger generation of intellectuals naturally inherited the ideals set by their predecessors. Some continued to write but many felt that it was now time to do more than that, they wanted to act and fulfill their visions. It is hard to establish to what extent the authors influenced the activists and the other way around, but there are some clear connections. The Westernisers, or the liberals towards the left who wanted parliamentary democracy, often joined the zemstva. This was a way of trying to change policies without going against the government. According to Pipes, the members of the zemstva were “socialist but anti-revolutionary and anti-élitist”24. The zemtva had limited political influence; when a national zemstvo was called for, Alexander said no, he was not willing to give up his own power yet. However, had he not been killed, he might have agreed to it at a later stage. After Alexander’s death, the zemstva’s opinions came to matter less and the members became targets for persecution. Pipes writes that the old members came to form the “backbone of the liberal Constituational Party” 25 after the 1905 revolution. The Slavophiles were of importance during this period but their aim was rather to keep autocracy and so those who were engaged in politics worked for the Tsar. These conservative politicians were not a result of the literary Intelligentsia. To think they would have learnt anything from Dostoevsky for example is doubtful. They were nobles who were conservative in order to keep their status and tradition. Their beliefs did not originate in philosophical vision. The radicals, or the Populists, inspired by the writings of Marx, Chernyshevskii, Herzen and Lavrov, were the ones who defied the government and looked with suspicion on all of those who worked for it. As Saunders writes, the radicals were in “contrast with liberals, who spoke of freedom but did nothing to promote it”.26 They wanted to unite with the people, but the literature they got their inspiration from had never clarified how to achieve this. Because of this, most of the projects carried out by the early activists were unsuccessful. They settled among the workers and the peasants, worked with them and tried to understand them as well as teach them. This “going to the people” campaign proved to be very difficult. The peasants lived hand to mouth and fought daily problems like disease and food shortage. One can understand the feeling of hopelessness among the young intellectuals in trying to make them resist and struggle for a better society in those conditions. The whole campaign ended with the arresting of large numbers of activists in the mid 70’s and the Populist movement was persecuted when one member murdered the Tsar and Alexander III came to power, in 1881. However, the movement is of significance since it later developed into the Social Revolutionary party and also the Marxists. 24
Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime. p265 Ibid. p265 26 Saunders, Russia in the age of reaction and reform. p321 25
Noomi [lastname] The radicals took inspiration from the literary intelligentsia but they believed that literature should mainly serve political purposes, they did not advocate any artistic freedom. This might seem contradictory since the literary origin of their ideas was a direct result of increased artistic freedom.
Conclusion The intelligentsia emerged as a result of the gap between the people and those in power in Russia. It emerged not because of the self-interest of a particular group but from a will to create a society where public opinion and the values of the masses would be reflected in the governing of the nation. A member of the intelligentsia was not just a person with a higher degree of education, it was someone with an unselfish will to help and work for the welfare of society because of a belief in farsighted ideals. The intelligentsia consisted mostly of noblemen but later on extended to other social groups. They met and debated in in-official discussion circles and in universities, but their voices were not heard by the public until after Alexander II’s reforms of the censorship laws. They started writing, poetry and prose, novels and political scriptures, and published journals. These writings and journals became the first source of expression not connected to or supporting the government and basically the only source of political discussion reaching out to the people. Not only was the political content of the writings important, but the unsurpassed quality of literature which prevailed throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. The writers wanted to find Russia’s national identity and believed literature to be the way of doing so. They vividly captured Russia’s essence; the harmony of the peasant commune as well as the stiff bureaucracy of the clergy, the multifaceted psyche of the individual as well as the sufferings of the masses. In their novels they created ideals of an imagined future Russian society, combining the essentially Russian with Western influences. Dostoevsky wrote of the value of the Russian ideals communicated by the writers; “Don’t judge our people on how they are, but on how they would like to be”.27 They believed their ideas, though often more philosophical than practical, would make a difference. Knowing the background, philosophy and results of the Russian intelligentsia, is it justified to say that they did make a difference, and if so, in what way? To answer this question one must assess what is required for a group in society to make a difference. If influencing government decisions or gaining political power is a criteria, the answer is no, the literary intelligentsia never got any considerable practical political influence. They always had to struggle for their freedom of expression and often had disputes with the government. Indirectly, they contributed to the emergence of opposition movements. The radicals were inspired by their visions and tried to unite with the people, only to discover that the people did not have the time or motivation to unite with them. The liberals and social democrats also took inspiration from their writings, and joined the zemstvos. This was a temporary success, but the dream of democracy would not 27
Dostoevsky, Fyodor, En författares dagbok, Wahlström & Widstrand, Stockholm, 1994. p84
Noomi [lastname] be realized in Russia in their lifetime. It is however hard to determine to what extent the Intelligentsia was responsible for this opposition. If awakening the public and spreading new ideas is enough to make a difference, then the answer is yes, the works of the intellectual writers in mid 19th century Russia contributed very much to the enlightment of the Russian people and most importantly to the formation of a common awareness.
Noomi [lastname] Bibliography
Dostoevsky, Fyodor, En Fรถrfattares Dagbok, Wahlstrรถm & Widstrand, Stockholm, 1994 Original title: Dnevnik pisatelja Hosking, Geoffrey, Russia - People and Empire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass., 1997
Edited by Moser, Charles, The Cambridge history of Russian literature, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989: Peace, Richard, The natural school and its aftermath, 1840-55 Freeborn, Richard, The age of realism, 1855-80 Connolly, Julian, Between realism and modernism
Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime, Peregrine Books, Norwich, 1977 Saunders, David, Russia in the age of reaction and reform, Longman, New York, 1992 Sherman, Russell, Russia 1815-81, Hodder and Stoughton Educational, London, 2002