Школа Чаянова: между прошлым и будущим: сборник материалов Международной научной конференции Чаяновского исследовательского центра, 22–23 октября 2020 г.
This article analyzes grass-root politics in the Russian Civil War, challenging the traditional assumption that the Bolsheviks with their program of radical revolutionary change enjoyed greater popularity than their White adversaries. On the example of the Northern region, it demonstrates that the local «counter-revolutionary» government commanded considerable sympathies of the provincial population. This popularity was based on the government's ability to supply the population of this non-agricultural province with imported grain, to provide military protection and arms for self-defense. Ultimately, the article strives to explain the outcome of the Civil War not by conflicting ideologies and policies, but by practical circumstances and local factors that on a grass-root level conditioned changing political loyalties.
Рецензия на книги Sarah Badcock. Politics and the People in Revolutionary Russia: A Provincial History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) и Aaron B. Retish. Russia’s Peasants in Revolution and Civil War: Citizenship, Identity, and the Creation of the Soviet State, 1914-1922 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
This chapter discusses peasant political attitudes during the Russian Revolution and Civil War on the example of their interaction with zemstvos. Focusing on the zemstvo self-government in Arkhangel’sk province in the Russian North between 1917 and early 1920, it tells two interconnected stories: an institutional story of the Northern zemstvo during the Revolution and Civil War and a story of effective peasant collaboration with changing political regimes. I argue that peasants did support different forms of local government if these served the needs of the village and mediated between rural communes and the state. The example of zemstvo self-government in the Russian North highlights the importance of particular local conditions for shaping political and administrative structures of the Civil-War era. An examination of zemstvo activities in the Northern countryside also reveals that during the Civil War when political authority was increasingly fragmented, northern peasants did not seek to break ties with the state. Instead, they tried to engage the state power that was currently controlling their territory.
A theoretical contribution to the economics and statistics of prominent scientists is described: A. Fayol, one of the founders of industrial management, academician, one of the CEMI RAS' founders N.P. Fedorenko, Nobel Prize winner 1993 R.W. Vogel, the greatest economist of the Middle Ages, the scholastician Thomas Aquinas, a prominent peasant scholar and predecessor of Chayanov - A.F. Fortunatov.
The theoretical contribution to the economics and statistics of prominent Russian pre-revolutionary scientists was resurrected and described: A.V. Chayanov, a theorist of zoning A.N. Chelintsev, statisticians N.S. Chetverikoff and A.A. Chuprow, who worked with E.E. Slutsky and N.D. Kondratieff, then striking public figure and educator A.I. Chuprow, at last professor at Moscow State University and the adept of V.K. Dmitrieff' ideas - N.N. Shaposhnikoff. Their intellectual biographies with previously unknown details are given as well.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.