One of principal characteristics of modern state has been its aspiration to acquire extensive and detailed information about population it oversees. As James C. Scott remarks, whereas its premodern counterpart was content with levels of intelligence sufficient for only most basic practices of governance, the modern state increasingly aspired to 'take in charge' physical and human resources of nation and make them more productive. John Torpey has likewise noted, order to extract resources and to implement policies, states must be in a position to locate and lay claim to people and goods. (1) It is only in past two centuries or so--and in many cases much more recently--that states have developed administrative capacity to make confident claims on their subjects and citizens. Until then, there were often great discrepancies between interventions to which states aspired and instruments available for their realization. The recognition of such discrepancies enjoins us to focus attention on processes by which states construct relationships between themselves and their subjects. Torpey has rightly noted that prevailing analytical tendency to describe states' growing capacity to or reach into societies fails to account for precise mechanisms by which such relationships are forged and sustained. As an alternative, he suggests that we regard states as seeking not simply to penetrate but also to societies, 'surrounding' and 'taking hold' of their members--individually and collectively--as those states grow larger and more administratively adept. Torpey's emphasis is on grasp of state rather than on its reach, on techniques of governance concerned with unique and unambiguous identification of individuals that rendered other, more prominent and visible projects--such as conscription and taxation--possible and enforceable. (2) The present article analyzes a crucial aspect of Russian state's infrastructural embrace of its population: establishment and operation of a system for maintaining civil acts registering births, marriages, and deaths of empire's population. I focus in particular on that were maintained by religious servitors of empire's various confessions and that constituted closest approximation to an order of universal registration. (3) These registers served as foundation for civil status and exercise of rights, as well as for state's claims on its subjects in a growing range of contexts. I argue that even as state aspired to its population more firmly through extension of metrical books to an ever-widening circle of confessional groups, administrative weakness compelled autocracy to effectuate this indirectly, through mediating religious personnel and institutions. Particularly as state's need for reliable and comprehensive documentation on identity of its subjects grew, deficiencies of resulting order became ever more consequential. My emphasis in present study is thus on gradual character of state's infrastructural growth, crucial mediating role of confessional institutions, and complexities that thereby conditioned development of a comprehensive, if differentiated, civil order in Russia. At center of my inquiry is a fundamental tension between universality and particularity in documentary regime constructed in Russia over course of imperial period. On one hand, metrical books represented standard method for ascertaining identity and civil status of empire's entire population, without reference to social distinction or abode. As imperial law itself indicated, these registers were one set of deeds that were common to all statuses (obshchie dlia vsekh sostoianii). (4) In this respect, metrical books represented a universalistic practice of governance. …
Read full abstract