Le gouvernement est encore le seul Européen de la Russie… О концепции «Русского момента» Маршалла Т. По

Abstract

The history of studying the processes of modernization of the state and society and the transition from tradition to modernity in Russia has come a long way. Researchers from different schools and directions have offered a wide variety of explanations for the phenomenon of Russian modernization, trying to answer the question of whether Russia was really able to go this route to the end and what is unique about the Russian version of modernization. Naturally, when discussing this problem, most humanities scholars viewed it from a Eurocentric position, placing Russia, depending on the traditions of the school to which they belonged, either in a European context or in an Asian one. The American historian Marshall Poe, in his book about the “Russian moment” in history, which became a bestseller, tried to give his original answer to the question – why Russia, unlike other early modern nonEuropean empires, succeeded on the path of modernization, given that the starting conditions were unfavorable to her. The secret of the success of Russia, which, according to M. Poe, is not Europe, and especially not Asia, was that the Russian military elite was able to create a political regime (autocracy as an ideal form of monarchy, brought to the absolute), which ensured the mobilization of the meager Russian resources to resist Western expansion. Along the way, the autocracy, as M. Poe believed, restructured Russian society accordingly, resorting to methods of sophisticated social engineering. M. Poe’s concept cannot be denied of harmony, logic and persuasiveness, but, as the author of the review shows, in pursuit of an effective presentation, the author of “The Russian Moment” deliberately omitted a number of essential details of the Russian historical process. As a result, closer examination of his concept reveals that it suffers from a number of inherent flaws that cast doubt on its entirety and, according to the author of the review, make it nothing more than a curious historiographical artefact.