Discipline In Russia Research Articles

European, National, and (Anti-)Imperial: The Formation of Academic Oriental Studies in Late Tsarist and Early Soviet Russia

This article focuses on circulation of knowledge within discipline of Oriental Studies in Russia and in Europe from 1880s to late 1920s. In this period, two processes, closely intertwined but vectored in opposite directions, shaped nature of science and These processes were nationalization (the emergence of nation as structuring unit and principal arena of scientific activity) and internationalization (increased international cooperation as well as competition among scholars from different countries). (1) Even though Russian Oriental Studies as an established academic discipline dates back to 1804, it was only in 1880s that a community of Orientalist (2) scholars sharing a common identity and partaking in a clearly defined program of study emerged in (3) The period from 1880s to 1920s was time when discipline in Russia boasted greatest names, particularly Baron Viktor Rozen (1849-1908) and a group of his disciples, including Vasilii Bartol'd (1869-1930), Nikolai Marr (1864-1934), and Sergei Ol'denburg (1863-1934). (4) Within Russian academic community, Oriental Studies was perceived in that period as strongest discipline, which, on a par with Russian Studies, was most widely recognized internationally. (5) Furthermore, above-mentioned Orientalists believed that their discipline was central to key questions facing Russia at time. According to Bartol'd, [t]he fulfillment by Russians of their historic missions in West and in East is closely linked to situation of Russian scholarship. (6) In his view, [m]aybe modest works by Russian Orientalists more than other achievements of Russian culture will contribute to peaceful unification of peoples of East with Russia. (7) These scholars agreed that the prestige and immediate interests of Russia required Russian scholars to be in lead internationally in study of various nationalities populating Russian empire. (8) Thus, in eyes of these scholars, their work was explicitly linked to management of nationality question in Russia, to search for Russian national identity, and to Russia's imperial ambitions. These positions of Russian scholars and, in many ways, development of Russian Oriental Studies in period under review reflect general contemporary trends in European Since 19th century, this scholarship had been shaped by several forces. First, roots of a rapid development of various branches of humanities are to be found in a larger positivist enterprise [of Enlightenment] that sought empirically verifiable information about all societies everywhere. (10) In terms of methods used to extract and process this information pride of place belonged to those developed by classical philologists. Second, ideology of nationalism assigned special importance to study of scholars' own societies within their contemporary boundaries. Belief in division of world above all into nations placed nationality at center of historical, archaeological, philological, and ethnographic research. (11) Simultaneously, (nation-)states became increasingly involved in funding and setting agendas for scientists and scholars. (12) Finally, imperialism, another important political force with its own ideologies, also had an impact on various humanities disciplines, especially Oriental Studies. (13) This article discusses how interaction among these pan-European processes played out in case of Russian Oriental Studies. It starts by showing how modern Russian Oriental Studies took shape as an academic discipline under impact of debate in Russia about national identity. It then discusses impact of pan-European processes of nationalization and internationalization on Russian Oriental Studies by focusing on role of Rozen and his disciples. It further demonstrates how imperialist discourse promoted at international congresses of Orientalists was subverted by scholars' attempts to incorporate Orient into Russian identity and how belief in pan-European methods of scholarship co-existed with criticism of some of approaches of European scholars, leading to claims about moral superiority of Russian …

The History of International Legal Theory in Russia: a Civilizational Dialogue with Europe

This review essay examines the main breaks and continuities in the history of international legal theory in Russia. In particular, it draws on works by leading Russian international law scholars: Peter Pavlovich Shafirov (1670-1739), Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens (1845-1909), Baron Mikhail Taube (1869-1956), Vladimir Emmanuilovich Hrabar (1865-1956), Fyodor Ivanovich Kozhevnikov (1893-1998) and Grigori Ivanovich Tunkin (1906-1993). The reception of these theoreticians’ works in today's Russia is also examined. The history of the discipline in Russia opens itself up as a civilizational dialogue with (Western) Europe. The main questions have been: Is international law universal or fragmented; what is the progressive force in international law? The Russian theory of international law has moved from proving that ‘we too are civilized/European’ in the early 18th century to an aspiration towards Western European civilization in the 18th and 19th centuries to the break with the West and an affirmation of Russia's own distinctiveness and primacy in the 20th century. Those who hurriedly celebrated Russia's reunion with Europe (and Western liberal theory of international law) following the end of the Cold War should not lose sight of the longer historical perspective and especially the experiment of the ‘civilizing’/Europeanizing/liberalizing project in 19th century Russian and Baltic German international law scholarship.

Theology in Higher Education in Post-Soviet Russia (1991–2008)

AbstractIn this article the most urgent problems, which have arisen in the introduction of theology to Russian higher education, are examined step-by-step as examples of the situation in the post-Soviet area. Starting from the historical background of the question, the article describes the collapse of the study of religion and theology after the October Revolution in 1917 and looks at the status of theologians in Soviet society and their identity in present-day Russia. Subsequently, it analyzes theology as an educational discipline in Russia and concludes with the problem of the complex relationship between theology and the academic study of religion in contemporary Russia, which developed against the Soviet background of Russian science.

Alexander Butlerov and the Professionalization of Science in Russia

7lIhe Great Reform Era during the reign of Alexander 11 (1855-81) produced significant changes throughout Russian society, including the emancipation of the serfs, military reforms, judicial reforms, and educational reforms. One important impact of these and other reforms was the stimulus they gave to the growth of professions and professional specialists in the years before 1917. While early studies of professions focused on the United States and England, scholars are devoting more attention to the development of professions in Russia and other continental countries.1 For Russia, many studies have focused on the political role of the professions and the interaction of professionals and the state in the years surrounding the 1905 Revolution. In this article, however, I examine the efforts of the prominent Russian chemist Alexander Butlerov (1828-86) to introduce changes in the teaching and pursuit of chemistry in Russia during the late 1850s and early 1860s. These changes initiated the professionalization of chemistry in Russia and were instrumental in making chemistry the strongest scientific discipline in Russia before 1917. One of the most important Russian scientists of the nineteenth century, Butlerov gained international recognition for his work on the structural theory of

The State of the Discipline in Russia: Interviews with Russian Anthropologists

Interviews with four Russian anthropologists during the fall of 1995 reveal that the discipline in Russia is undergoing a crisis of identity. Due to changing political and cultural realities, there has been growing uncertainty about the aims, methods, and object of the discipline, as well as about its place within the human sciences. The author believes that Russian anthropology is at the moment unable to situate itself safely in the face of the changes and uncertainties.

La géographie russe (1845-1917) à l'ombre et à la lumière de l'historiographie soviétique

Russian geography (1845-1917). In the shadow and in the light of soviet historiography. — In pre-Revolutionary Russia, geography experienced an institutional development and a blossoming very close to European standards of that time. However, for multiple reasons, it has remanied almost unknown in Western Countries where it is just being discovered. The geography historian anxious to work in this field, will have at his disposal, besides an access to texts and different sources, a weighty mediator: the Soviet historiographical tradition. Therefore, this article is first an assessment of the content, the characteristics, and the limits of this production. It points out its slow and relative professionalization following the controversies of the 1960'S. Then, a reinterpretation of the history of Russian geography from a sociohistorical point of view is outlined. It would be a question of showing that the late and uncompleted charcateristics of the institutionalization of the discipline in Russia stems from the weakness of the civil society all over the xixth century and from specific geographical requirements of the state apparatus which did not favour the autonomy of an academic science.