|
Russian Studies 09/11/08
Spragins/Julius
Peter the
Great : Reading Guide 2.0
Read the Shcherbatov
piece with an eye to understanding how some could (and would continue to)
look upon Peter’s reforms as deeply subversive and regrettable.
The proto-slavophile
who criticizes Peter for subverting the traditional religious beliefs and
respect for authority in old Russia by injecting Western style competition
into the bureaucracy. The pursuit of ‘liberal’ self-interest over dedication
to the welfare of family and country will lead to social disintegration and a
new Time of troubles.
Slavophile position: Russia ought to
adhere to its cultural patterns: autocracy, rigid social classes, peasant communes. Instead of rational self interest the
Russian people will model for Europe a different path to reform and social
justice based on communal ties.
Spend more time on the Zitser
piece which continues our exploration into the impact of Peter on the
direction of Russian history.
Skim all but the last sentence of
the first paragraph but then pay close attention to the argument carried
forward in the next paragraph. Follow
the distinction made between organic and forced change, and Anderson’s assessment
of Peter’s impact on change in Russia.
Structural/organic historical
forces (Hegel) vs. Intentional/forced change from the top down
Forces
gathering in Russia prior to Peter’s reign enabled the consolidation of the
state. Peter did introduce reforms but Russia was already headed towards
modernization.
Peter’s actions
significantly accelerated change through his embrace of Western ideas about
statecraft and rational bureaucratic reforms.
Note carefully Anderson’s
analysis of the harmful impact of many of Peter’s reforms.
The mechanization of force
(Peter’s impersonal bureaucracy) weakend old
Russian personal power politics and damaged Russia’s organic development.
Follow the distinction between
“psycho-historical” and “geopolitical” explanations for Peter’s motivations.
What are the key
“psycho-historical” elements noted here?
To what degree do
individuals influence the destiny of nations? (their
own destiny?)
The war games and mock rituals (blaspheming the church) that Peter engaged in
as a child served, in ways similar to court masques in Western courts, to
rehearse Peter for his own manner of exercising power. Did Peter make war on Sweden, a real
gamble, because he had been playing war games all of his life?
What
is the “geopolitical” explanation?
Hard headed real politik (ala Machiavellian
empirical exercise of power) dictates that the leader
pursue the necessary actions to enhance and preserve self interest in
any given geo-political situation.
Why
is Zitser skeptical about this theory?
Peter’s own pursuit of
diplomatic initiatives actually created opportunities to transform the
geo-political situation.
Note that
Zitser prefers Oliva’s
view of Russia’s relationship with the West.
Peter’s example of dynamic, secular
leadership ‘westernized’ the West by modeling the enlightened despot.
Note the two reasons why some find
Peter’s legendary status appealing.
1. Western taste for the
dramatic
2. the hope of rapid
development through enlightened despotism
3. Defense of top down,
state sponsored revolutionary change (model for Lenin and Stalin)
Why
does Anderson object to the second and more serious source of appeal?
Peter was not a revolutionary
pursuing an articulated social ideal.
Why
does Zitser agree with Anderson but disagree with
his reasoning?
The whole concept of
revolution in the modern, post- French Rev sense was alien to Peter’s
historical milieu.
Do you like Peter?
We would like to think that one man can
change history, no matter how negative that change might be. The existence of
human agency in history comforts us with the notion of progress. Human agency
alone makes responsibility viable (and our dignity as sentient, autonomous
beings. If, however, organic (structural) forces beyond our understanding and
ultimate control drive history. Then we cannot alter what is to come, which
might be such good news.
|