590 SEER, 87, 3, JULY 2OO9 Constitutional Court validateProcacciai characterization of Russia as a stubbornly 'concessionist state5 allergicto sovereign, privatecontracts and addictedtoornateprocedure oversubstantive justice.Russianspecialists may findProcacciai richsurvey ofthedevelopment ofcontract law in theWest illuminating. Buttheywillnoteproblems on theRussianside.Dostoevskii is Procacciai guideon Russianlegalconsciousness. Such specialists on Russian legalhistory as Daniel Kaiser,RichardWortman, WilliamWagner,Andrzej Walicki,GarethPopkinsandJaneBurbankare absent.The textreachesout to non-specialists contemplating Russia'sintegration in theinternational economiccommunity . For them,Procacciaconcludes'IfRussiawantsWestern contract, shemustbe "like"theWest.She oughtto renounceherowntraditionsandforthefirst timeinherhistory, import foreign ideaswithout tamperingwiththem .[.. .] IfRussiawishestokeepitsallegiancetoherownhistory and toforego contract, orelsetobecomea contractual and corporate nation butsacrifice hertraditional, and extremely spiritual, historical calling,is not forme to say'.Mostspecialists on Russianculture willrecognize thegenealogyofProcaccia 'scultural encounter withRussia,maychucklesympatheticallyat hislively descriptions ofitsmaddening aspects, butwillagreethatit is indeed'notforhimto say'without a morethorough grounding in recent scholarship based on deep knowledge and archival research. University ofNewHampshire Cathy A. Frierson Kaehne, Axel. Politicaland Social Thought in Post-Communist Russia. BASEES/ RoutledgeSerieson Russianand EastEuropeanStudies, 40. Routledge, Londonand New York,2007.x + 169pp. Notes.Bibliography. Index. Westernersfrustrated withRussia'sslowpassagetoa moreliberalsociety will findAxel Kaehne's studyof post-Communist Russian politicaland social thought fullofimportant insights and stimulating questions.His book is an attempt todetermine thechancesofliberalpolitics inRussiabyanalysing the interpretive devicesemployed byRussiantheorists andhistorians. In addition, in contrast to theassumption thatit is Russianswho mustlearnfromthe West,KaehneaskswhatWestern political thought canlearnfrom theRussian experience. He - rightly - emphasizesthatthereis no commondebate betweenEast and West,and hisworkis evidently an attempt to foster such a discussion. However,as his studyevolves,anotheraim comesintoview; Kaehne wishesto re-establish the'universalist credentials ofpoliticalliberalism '(p. 148),usingthecollapseofCommunism as a test-case forliberalism's viability. Kaehne'sownliberalism issimilar toMichaelOakeshott's. A liberalsociety can bestfunction when,likecivilassociations, itsetsdownrulesforconduct butrefrains from prescribing theaimsofhumanactivity. This is difficult for REVIEWS 591 Russianliberalsto embracesincetheRussianliberaltradition has often had a conservative or communitarian aspectto it,or been undermined by associationwithradicaldemocratic tendencies likeBolshevism. Itisimperative, in Kaehne'sview,thatRussianliberals learnto conceivethepolitical arenaas a place of politicalbargainingratherthan as an upshotof ethicalmaxims (p. 114).However,Russianscholarsare stilltoo concernedwithfinding the 'nextimmutable truth' tofinda wayforward (p.50). Kaehne's studyinvolvesdiscussionof a numberof Russian thinkers, amongstthemV. G. Fedotova,K. S. Gadzhiev,A. A. Kara-Murza, Sv. Kniazeva and I. K. Pantin.However,thetwofigures who receivegreatest attention are the influential politicaltheorist A. S. Akhiezer, and theprorectorof the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences,B. G. Kapustin.Whilepraising someoftheideasofthesetwomen,Kaehne argues thattheybothhave a tendency to underestimate thepoliticaldimension of liberalism. Akhiezer's viewscontainan inherent tension.On theone hand, Akhiezer seesa liberalorderas a politicalframework formanaging diversity and conflict; indeedhe believesa liberalpoliticalorderis uniquelysuitedto dealingwiththe challengesof modernization. On the otherhand,he sees theliberalorderas a form ofcivilization or culture in whichpeopleespouse liberalideas. Unfortunately, theformer idea is compromised by thelatter: instituting a liberalstatecomes to be dependenton everyoneendorsing liberalattitudes in all areas oftheirlives,something thatis highly unlikely. Akhiezer has an insufficiently politicalconceptofliberalism, evenifitis one thatalso challenges Westerntheorists seekingto isolatethepoliticalsphere from thesocialenvironment (pp.64-65). Kapustin'sthought also has problems. His visionofliberalpolitics works fromthe assumptionthatliberalismis an 'irreducibly diversetheoretical enterprise', and thatitsflexibility allowsforconstant revision in thelightof contemporary conditions. However,whileKapustinbelievesin 'algorithms of liberalactivities', hisversionofliberalism is essentially procedural, and lacks a setofcorevalues(pp.98, 135).His thought also contains a conflict between theprofessed liberalism ofmoderninstitutions, and thedesireto foundthem on culturally embeddedmoralvalues.He takestheview,promulgated byan earlier generation ofRussianphilosophical liberals, thatdemocracy isprimarilyan ethical idea.Kaehnesuggests thatVladimir Solov'ev'sassertion thatlaw couldbe seenas theirreducible minimum ofmorality reflected thistradition, and represented 'itseventualfailure'.Kapustin'does not seem to trusthis [own]heterogeneous politics'(p. in). Part of the challengeforKaehne is to reconcilethe universalist liberal project withthekindofhistoricization ofliberalism thatis tobe foundin the writings of Akhiezer, Kapustinand others.In thiscontext, he again finds Oakeshott appealing:Oakeshott wasalsocommitted tohistorical contingency; and he also emphasizedthecentral importance ofhumanagencyin history, a themethatKaehne also stresses, althoughwithout developing it in great detail(p. 151). 592 SEER, 87, 3, JULY 2OOg Thisisan ambitious and interesting book- although sometimes Kaehne's style is hardto follow. The evidenceheresuggests thatRussiais unlikely to developverysoonthekindofpolitical liberalism thatKaehne is advocating. However,itis perhapsworthaskingifthecreationofa politics significantly detachedfrom ethicsis in anycase theright wayforward - either forEast orWest.The taskofmanaging pluralism and ensuring liberty is clearly vital, butitis nottheonlytaskofthestate.For example,educationsystems must also in theend say something aboutwhatconstitutes humannature;some visionof ultimate humanpurposesis needed as well. In thiscontext, the Russianconservative liberaltradition - in theopinionofthisreviewer maystillhavesomething to offer. School ofHistory P. C. Boobbyer University ofKent Mihailova,Katya. Stranstvash...