The past two decades have produced a virtual explosion in academic interest in racial theory and the history of and racism. Historians, literary critics, and moral philosophers have published a staggering number of books, articles, and journals and organized countless conferences, symposia, and seminars devoted to these themes. The study of and racism has emerged as a worldwide concern that knows no geographic boundaries or chronological limitations. Yet in the romance with racial matters, scholars have used and racism so loosely, uncritically, and unreflectively that these terms have lost their analytical rigor and historical specificity and have become a cliched vocabulary. (1) Some scholars have even advocated forsaking once and for all the inflammatory and exceedingly ductile category of 'racism' save as a descriptive term referring to empirically analyzable doctrines and beliefs about 'race.' (2) Others, however, continue to debate the significance of in contemporary society and culture and use such provocative titles as Race Matters and Against Race to market their books to a wider audience. (3) In recent years, researchers have even broadened their inquiry to include previously uncharted geographic and chronological territories that range from the Greco-Roman world (proto-racism) to modern France (soft-racism). (4) While the popularity of racial studies continues to grow and attract ever more attention from the academy, scholars of imperial Russia have shown little interest in the recent theoretical and historical discussions of race. (5) The absence of in Russian imperial historiography, however, needs to be raised as a historical problem that requires explanation and analysis. If racial categories began to play a significant role in ordering social relations and behavioral practices in 19th-century Europe, why did these enormously influential ideas not penetrate Russian political culture and society? How unique was the Russian scientific community in its acceptance of environmental or neo-Lamarckian theories of development? To put it somewhat differently, did resistance to racial ideology symbolize Russia's alternative path to Western civilization and modernity? This article seeks to integrate race into discussions of imperial Russian culture and politics by analyzing the multiple and often contradictory intersections of the world of ideas (the debates between environmental and biologically deterministic theories of human development) and everyday social relations (the role that antisemitism and intolerance played in a multicultural and multi-religious empire). In particular, I examine the politicization of racial difference in the context of the anti-liberal shift that took place toward the end of the 19th century. As a deep conservatism and pessimism gripped Russian politics and culture, emerged as the most visible others who were often perceived as a threat to the health and prosperity of the imperial nation. Yet to argue that proved to be the exception in an otherwise tolerant and flexible imperial order is to overlook the very problematic (and still not well understood) meanings of Russianness, the politics of belonging and exclusion, and the ways in which differences were constructed, defined, and maintained at the end of the old regime. In late imperial Russia, had two broad meanings that could--but did not always--overlap. The first signified color and designated races as white, yellow, red, dark, and black. The second, more ambiguous meaning categorized groups such as Slavs, Semites, Caucasians, Greco-Romans, and Turko-Tatars as well as smaller ones such as Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, and as distinct races (rasy), types (tipy), or ethnicities (narody) based on highly elaborate and often contradictory physical categories and ethnographic descriptions. (6) While could not be distinguished from Germans or Slavs by skin color, they could be identified as Jews by physical characteristics and ethno-cultural descriptions. …