Discourses on Property Rights and Village Commune prior to the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia

This article attempts to analyze the discourses on property rights and village commune prior to the Abolition of Serfdom of 1861. It focuses on the discourses of the educated elite including economists, officials, and landowners on the grants of property rights and village commune to the peasants. The economists were eager to accept theories and ideas of property rights, agricultural productivity and prosperity from western countries. For them, the modem economic theories and ideas to promote the accumulation of wealth and to increase productivity could be introduced without ever calling into question the most traditional forms of power and privilege. Therefore, if introduced, the western theories and ideas tended to be revamped and transformed into those of limited meaning in Russia. This circumstances were not quite different in the case of liberal officials, social reformers, agricultural experts, and scholars that drafted the Statue of 1861. Examining the cases of the western countries, the liberal members of the editorial commission energetically tried to find the models of agrarian reform. They inspected the occasion of the French revolution in that the peasants were benefitted from land indemnification, and scrutinized the Prussian reform favorable to the gentry. But they did not want to destroy "existing realities," and attempted to domesticate the notions of property rights and formulate a new concept that would strengthen rather than undermine the power of the landed gentry and the state. Because of considering domestic security, their arguments for 'privatization' did not extend rights of freedom of actions to the peasants. Although agreeing that it was necessary to give the peasants full property rights, they left contradictory resolutions, that is, the limited private property of land and village communal property to the peasants. The discourses on property rights and village commune of economists and officials reflected their traditional attitudes toward peasants. For them, peasants were not an actor but an object. They argued that the considerable backwardness of peasants in the communal institutions and possible instability of the peasant actions forced them to have no choice but to impose an indefinite and exceedingly long-term program of guidance, supervision, and control. In this context, both the communal property and grants of private property to the peasantry that seemed contradictory in nature were established for the interests of domestic security

The Spatial Structure of Tashkent and Representation of Power of Russian Empire in the late of Nineteenth Century

This article attempts to examine the spatial structure of Tashkent as a colonial city and the capital of Turkestan Government-Generalship of the Russian Empire. Capitals are distinguished from other cities because they function as a special site for the representation political power. After having been conquered by force, Tashkent became the capital city of Turkestan Government-Generalship and a political, administrative, military, and cultural center for colonial rule of the Russian Empire in Central Asia. Tsarist officials tried to transplant St. Petersburg, the imperial capital, into Tashkent. The Russian government constructed a modern and new city on the right side of the old city of the ancient Silk Road, instead of entering the urban space of old civilization. In doing so, the Russian government separated the new city from the old one. This article intends to examine not only the characters of Tashkents spatial structure itself but also how its urban space was reconstituted by the Russian colonial rule, in other words, the properties of Turkestan policy of the Russian Empire. In conclusion, this paper argues that 'modern' urban space constructed by Russian Empire in Tashkent, in fact was not only 'pre-modern' space projected on the aspirations, fear, ignorance of ruling powers in the colony, but also 'paradoxical' space based on the isolation of the indigenous peoples

Between Distribution and Desire: Consumption Life and Advertisements of the Soviet Russia in the 1920s

This study explores the general outlook of it under question and its meaning in the given period of the socialist regime, drawing upon the recent scholarship on consumption life in the first decade of the Soviet Union. Consumption life under consideration was closely associated with a wide range of changes, namely of political and economic hardship, all of which inevitably evolved from revolution, civil war, famine, epidemic, etc. The only way of obtaining the necessary goods in everyday life at the time was rationing system and limited private retail trade. Consumption life under the regime of the Soviet Russia was crucial problems that illustrate the conflicts between the socialist ideal and reality, government and society, and distribution and personal desire. The reason lies in the fact that consumption life serves as a criterion to determine the socialist modernity even in a society in which equality and collectiveness are proclaimed for its important social project and administration drive. During the interwar conjuncture period, consumerism led by America spread over the globe, and her counterpart, the Soviet Russia, which sought for anti-capitalism, also was trying to accomplish the index either of mass production or mass consumption. With these questions in mind, this article pays a special attention to those three actors centering around our research topic under consideration. First, it focuses on the soviet government which paradoxically stayed between the rationing system and private retail trade. Second, our focal points are placed on the makers of advertisement ("reklamo-constructor"), who played a significant role in producing competitive goods not only to win over other rivalry, but high quality of those manufactured products. Last, the public themselves, most of which were target for commercial advertisements, are examined. During the existence of entire period of the Soviet Union, and under these economic and social circumstances of on-going up and down of permission and prohibition of private retail trade, the common people had to rely on retailing trade to purchase necessary goods, which were provided by neither the state store nor cooperative store. For this right reason, the socialist government itself could not help but to be influenced from the general flow of mass production and mass consumption, both of which should have indeed been oriented toward socialist literally. Taken together, throughout this paper we try to flesh out the overall picture of the period, understanding the given time of consumption life was crucial one not just for the basic shaping of socialist regime, but building of identity of the Soviets.이 논문은 2007년도 정부(교육인적자원부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원에 의하여 연구되었음(KRF-2007-362-B00013)

Experiments for Socialist Space in Soviet Russia: House of Commune and M. Ginzburg in the 1920s

This paper purports to examine the experiments of a Soviet constructivist architect Moisei Ginzburg, who tried to realize socialist space during the 1920s. After the revolution of 1917, there were a plenty of experiments in order to build the socialist human life and society in Soviet Russia, especially among the constructive architects. Its main goal was to create a new sovieticus and new daily lives (быт), and furthermore to make house of commune to socialist condenser. This article is to explain a historical background, process, discourse of construction of house of commune, and why it was finally rejected by Stalin. In addition, it will explain a complex, contradictory and extremely controversial history about the meaning of the house of commune to realize the socialist style of daily life by tracing the relationship and various debates among party leaders, architects organizations, construction committees, and Ginzburg. Although the experiments of constructive architects were rejected by Stalin system and forgotten for a long time in Soviet Russia, this paper attempts to emphasize that architects and house of commune was a product of historical experience, and the socialist space could be understood without considering the historical context.도시는 종종 국가를 나타내기도 하며, 이상적인 의미의 어떤 문명과 세계의 중심이 되곤 한다. 도시의 건축물들, 도시의 의식(rituals), 도시의 거리 이름 등 수많은 과거의 잔재들은 끊임없이 과거 역사의 텍스트를 새롭게 만들어 주는 기호학적 프로그램으로 해석될 수 있다. 그런가 하면 도시의 건축물은 국가와 민족의 정체성뿐만 아니라 특정한 개인 및 집단의 정체성을 반영하기도 한다. 이때 국가는 단지 권력의 이미지를 투영하기 위한 것만이 아니라 그 권력을 정의하고 그것에 정통성을 부여하기 위해 도시의 건축물을 이용하기도 한다. 르 코르뷔지에(Le Corbusier)는 건축을 통해 도시공간을 지배하고자 하는 국가의 권력적 본질을 다음과 같이 지적한 바 있다. 즉, 도시는 삶과 집약된 노동의 중심이다. 느슨한 [...] 민족과 사회, 무기력한 도시는 행동하고 자제하는 민족과 사회에 의해 순식간에 사라지고 정복되며 흡수된다. 그렇게 해서 도시는 죽고 주도권은 이양된다.이 논문은 2007년 정부(교육인적자원부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행한 연구임(KRF-2007-362-B00013)

Some Reflections on the Historiography of "New Imperial History" in Post-Soviet Russia: Focused on the Journal Ab Imperio

소련해체 이후 신제국사 연구를 조망함으로써, 이 논문은 최근 러시아 제국과 민족 연구에 관한 새로운 접근과 방법론에 나타난 발전의 단서들을 찾고자 한다. 이러한 단서들은 신제국사 연구 프로젝트에서 발견할 수 있는데, 그것은 일리야 게라시모프, 알렉산드르 세묘노프, 마리나 모길네르, 카플루노프스키, 기르고 세르게이 글레보프를 포함해 러시아의 젊은 세대의, 주도적인 연구 집단에 의해 수행되었다. 이 프로젝트는 단일한 하나의 과거나 미래가 아니라 다수의 과거와 미래를 염두에 두며 낡은 연구사에서 발견되는 신화를 비판적으로 탐구한다. 이 논문에서는 주로 그들이 공동편집진으로서 활동하는 학술지 『압 임페리오』를 중심으로 분석한다. 이 논문은 제국과 민족 사이의 역설적 상황을 고려하면서, 2장에서는 학술지 『압 임페리오』의 창간 배경, 3장에서는 그 주요 주장, 4장에서는 신제국사 적용의 문제점에 대해 다룰 것이다. 결론적으로 이 논문은 제국과 민족 사이의 영토적, 정치적, 문화적 경계의 복합적인 구성물을 다루는 신제국사의 다양한 연구경향을 확인할 것이다. This paper attempts to find some clues to the developments of new approach and methodology for researching the Russian Empire and the Nation, through the overview on the historiography of new imperial history in Post-Soviet Russia. These can be found in the new imperial history project, conducted by a young generation group of leading Russian historians including I. Gerasimov, A. Semyonov, M. Mogilner, A. Kaplunovskii and S, Glebov. This critically explores the myths found in outdated historiography recognizing the multiplicity of past with view to the pluralism of the future. This paper analyses the journal Ab Imperio, edited and published by them. Considering the issues about paradoxical relationship between Empire and nations. it deals with the background of publication Ab Imperio at chapter 2, its main arguments at Chapter 3, and the problems for applying new imperial history to Russian Empire at the last chapter. In sum, we confirm various research trends of new imperial history, by complicating the presumed territorial. cultural, and political boundaries between Russian Empire and nations

Отмена крепостного права года в России и крестьянское хоэяйство : на примере Санкт-ПетерБургской гуБернии

학위논문(박사)--서울대학교 대학원 :서양사학과,2003.Docto