Смертельный трон. Загадки последних дней правителей России
“Empire Speaks Out” is a result of the collaborative international research project whose participants aim to reconstruct the origin, development, and changing modes of self-description and representation of the heterogeneous political, social, and cultural space of the Russian Empire. The collection offers an alternative to the study of empire as an essentialized historical phenomenon, i.e. to those studies that construe empire retrospectively by projecting the categories of modern nation-centered social sciences onto the imperial past. It stresses dynamic transformations, adaptation, and reproduction of imperial patterns of sociability and governance. Chapters of the collection show how languages of rationalization derived from modern public politics, scientific discourses of applied knowledge (law, sociology, political economy, geography, ethnography, physical anthropology) and social self-organization influenced processes of transformation of the imperial space.
The chapter is focused on exploration of the politics of comparison as it was practiced by the ideologues of the Russian Empire and imperialism at the beginning of the twentieth century. Special attention is given to the transfer of operative ideological frameworks from the British empire to the Russian context.
Battles of the First World War were accompanied by what was the first full-scale war of words in European history. It was aimed at influencing the public opinion abroad as well as at mobilizing the population at home. Leading intellectuals, including famous scholars, participated in propaganda campaigns waged by the belligerent nations. This text focuses on the discussions between philosophers
involved in the international conflict.
The article is told for minds of the leader statesmen of Russian Empire in the first half of XIX century, for must become Transcaucasia as province or as colony of Russian Empire? The first point was won, but it was to detriment of Russia.
A concept of 'medium-sized' data is introduced to complement 'Big' data used in many projects in quantitative history. Like Big data, medium-sized data are disaggregated, machine-readable, represent 'natural' populations rather than samples, and are 'shallow' (the number of variables is usually small). Unlike 'Big' data they are not accumulated routinely in a machine-readable format and require a lot of manual work, which puts certain limits to the size of datasets. General principles of dataset formation for the analysis of populations of persons and organizations are discussed. Two datsets (one, for 19th century Russian University professors and instructors, and another, for Russian philosophical periodicals of the first half of the 20th century) are used to demonstrate techniques of stepwise data aggregation (which helps to partly overcome the original shallowness of the medium-sized data) and visualization of historical processes. The role of novel descriptive and representative techniques in comparative studies is discussed.
The article examines the main trends in the study of the Stalinist period and the phenomenon of Stalinism in connection with the mass opening of the archives.