From June 9th-11th, EUSP, Saint-Petersburg Institute of History (Russian Academy of Sciences), and the Southern Methodist University (USA) held the 10th international colloquium on Russian history, “The Era of War and Revolution (1914-1922).” The colloquium took place with support from “Goznak”.
The colloquium’s organizers proposed placing the 1917 Revolution in the context of the larger revolutionary crisis of the years from 1914-1922. The period from the start of the First World War until the end of the Civil War in Russia allowed us to consider processes of average duration and to see the prerequisites and consequences of events that occurred between February and October.
In the course of the colloquium 36 scholars presented from around the world (Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Great Britain, Germany, the United States, and Japan). Their reports were divided into different sections depending on the topic, each of which was concerned with some aspect of the Revolution of 1917.
Opening remarks were made by the Director of Saint-Petersburg Institute of History RAS, professor Nikolay Smirnov, first Vice-Rector of the European University at St. Petersburg Veljko Vujacic, and Southern Methodist University (USA) professor Daniel Orlovsky.
In the February Revolution section, experts on the early period of the revolution gave reports on how such a rapid departure from the stage of autocracy—with its centuries-long history—was possible. During the discussion a question was raised regarding the revolution’s multiplicity in two aspects: whether it is correct to distinguish between the February and October revolutions, or whether these were two stages of the same process. Can we speak of a single Russian revolution, or was it dispersed into many national revolutions that occurred on the outskirts of the former empire? Mark Steinberg and Vladlen Izmozik provided commentary on these reports.
The section The Revolution and Law, Revolution and the Court was devoted to discussing questions of legality and justice during the revolution. The reports noted how relative these concepts were, and how situational the decisions of this period could be. Pointed and polemical presentations by commentators Vladimir Cherniaev and Nikolaus Ketzer set the tone for the discussion.
The second day of the colloquium began with the section The Revolution and Power. The audience’s attention was especially attracted by a report from one of the major experts on the history of the 1917 Russian Revolution, Alexander Rabinowitch of Indiana University (USA). The depth of the development of the topic and the question—surprising to contemporary historiography—of the Bolsheviks’ “survival” practices during the Civil War were brought up in conversation. The main discussion, with participation from discussants Ziva Galili and Vladimir Kalashnikov, revolved around the notion of the “elite” and “counter-elite” periods of the revolution. The presenters showed how flexible the boundaries of these groups could be, and that their intersection was even possible in some cases.
During the section The Revolution and Empire: Foreign Policy of the Revolution and the National Question, various aspects of relations between the center and periphery were discussed. Reports were presented on the national policy of the late empire and Soviet power in relation to Armenia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Bessarabia and the Jewish population. Discussant Karsten Bruggeman from Tallinn University (Estonia) supplemented the reports with issues raised in a comparative perspective by engaging material from the Estonian national movement during the First World War and the War of Independence. The second discussant Alexey Miller formulated the main reasons why the national question became relevant in the Russian Empire, particularly during the First World War, having shown its connection with foreign policy.
On the third day of the colloquium presenters in the section Culture and Consciousness in the Era of Revolution addressed the problem of the influence of rumors, myths, stereotypes, and the use of political language on consciousness during the era of revolutions. They considered the behavior of various segments of society based not on rational but on sensory and emotional perceptions of reality. Vibrant and memorable was Igal Halfin’s commentary, which called for studying the events of 1917 and the relationship between parties and society through a prism of discourse analysis. No less interesting was Diane Koenker’s commentary, which placed the reports in the context of the development of the study of political culture.
The final section of the colloquium, General Issues in Studying the History of the Revolution, largely summed up the three days of discussion. The reports by major scholars of the 1917 Revolution such as Daniel Orlovsky, William Rosenberg, Boris Kolonitsky, and Vladimir Buldakov overlapped in part with issues that had already been raised. They took them, however, to a new theoretical level. In his commentary, Jan Plamper noted that all the section’s reports were somehow connected with the history of emotions. He urged for a continuation of the search for approaches that bring us closer to understanding the “spirit of the revolution.” According to him, one such approach could be a focus on “sensory” history, referring to the auditory and olfactory, visual and gustatory as well as the tactile memory of participants of the historical process.
In the concluding discussion participants summarized the results of the colloquium, concentrating on the issues of the era of war and revolution that concern modern historiography. At the center of the discussion was the notion of power, its meaning, and interpretation. The presenters noted that the question of power ran through the entire colloquium like a red thread. Laura Engelstein, in conclusion, said, “Our reports show that power in general is not just assumed, it doesn’t arise from the street. Power, political authority, governmental legitimacy is created. The Bolsheviks didn’t seize power in October. They had to establish their authority. This task was performed by leaders, party members, and common people at different levels. They needed to take advantage of not just the crumbling institutions of the former government, but also to mobilize the source of the people’s emotions, of impulses that undermined the old order. At the intersection of these two dimensions lies the whole enigma of revolution.”
Text prepared by Konstantin Tarasov
{gallery}news/2016/11_06{/gallery}