Abstract
The aim of this article is to highlight key features of the Russian sociological tradition and to demonstrate its relevance for certain ongoing international debates. In the current literature the image of “Russian sociology” remains fragmentary and incomplete. Different stages in the history of Russian sociology are usually considered as mutually antagonistic. We challenge this view by arguing that the Russian sociological tradition can be seen as a continuing trajectory of social thought development, lasting from the XIXth century until present days and unified by a set of underlying historically determined common features: publicism (an orientation to non-academic audiences and a desire to promote changes in the real world); moral and ethical concern (a clear expression of value orientations; the particular importance of ethical and moral issues); problem orientation (a focus on urgent social concerns with “problem” dominating over “method” in sociological research). We demonstrate the importance of these features for a better understanding of the perspectives and contributions of Russian sociologists to current international debates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“Autocracy” is a translation of the Russian word “Samoderzhavie” which appeared in the Russian political discourse in the XVIth century. Autocracy is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of English (Stevenson 2010) as “a system of government by one person with absolute power.” In the Russian historical context this concept has a broader meaning. According to the famous Russian historian of the XIXth century, V. Klyuchevsky, “Autocracy” is particularly important as, on the one hand, the symbol of political independence of Russia, and, on the other hand, the sacrament of the unlimited power of the Russian rulers (Tzars, Emperors) in the domestic policy (Klyuchevskii 2002).
A most notable example was the circle of Mikhail Petrashevsky inspired by progressive European materialistic and socialistic ideas. This circle shaped in the 1840s and united Russian intellectuals seeking freedom for the peasants and democratic political transformations (Dolinin 1987). The famous Russian writer and philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky (see Mochulsky 1971) in his younger years actively engaged in the Petrashevsky circle. As a result, he was sent into exile in Siberia where he spent 4 years. Remarkably, in the international discourse Dostoevsky is acknowledged, most of all, for his elaborations of religiously conservative existentialist views that, obviously, did not support revolutionary movement (Fergusson 2010; Morillas 2008). However, being a member of Russian intellectual culture, as a young man he naturally joined revolutionary-oriented circles that largely determined the social and political context of the time.
The first academic institution in Russian sociology was established only at the beginning of the XXth century: the “Russian Higher School of Social Sciences” (founded in 1901 in Paris (France) by Maxim Kovalevsky).
Alexander Chayanov (1888–1939) is an internationally acknowledged scholar in the field of peasant studies (Harrison 1979). He analyzed the basic differences between capitalistic rural production and the traditional social organization of the Russian peasantry. Chayanov pointed to the necessity of greater space for the individual initiative and competition in the rural cooperation (Durrenberger 1984). Tragically, his views on the issue of differentiation of Russian peasantry were opposite to those of Stalin. In 1926 Chayanov was accused of protecting the interests of “Kulaks” (owners of rich rural households), in 1930 arrested and in 1937 sentenced to death.
Nikolai Kondratiev (1892–1938) is the author of the theory of “Big Economic Cycles” (Louçã 1999) which links the macroeconomic long-term cyclic development with the social transformations (this theory still gets credit in the international sociology (see, for example, Wallerstein (2000))). In his youth, Kondratiev served as personal secretary to the famous Russian sociologist Maxim Kovalevsky. In the 1920s, he was actively engaged in the policymaking in the field of rural economic and social development. Kondratiev was arrested on a false charge in 1930 and executed in 1938.
“Chekists” were, originally, the members of the “All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage” (1917–1922). This Extraordinary Commission was established soon after October revolution of 1917 in order to persecute and punish those who opposed the Soviet rule. Since 1918, the Extraordinary Commission had special authorities to put counter-revolutionaries to death without trial. Later the notion “chekist” became a common noun indicating a person fiercely defending the interests of the State and existing political power.
References
Anisimov, E. V. (1993). The reforms of Peter the Great: Progress through coercion in Russia (p. 214). ME Sharpe: New York.
Back, L. (2012). Live sociology: social research and its futures. Sociology Review, 60(S1), 18–39.
Batygin, G. (1998). Continuity of Russian sociological tradition. In V. A. Yadov (Ed.), Sociology in Russia. Moscow.
Batygin, G. S., & Deviatko, I. F. (1994). The metamorphoses of Russian sociology. Eastern Europe in Transformation: The Impact on Sociology. (109), 11.
Belfer, E. (1978). Zemlya vs. volya—from narodnichestvo to marxism∗. Europe-Asia Studies, 30(3), 297–312.
Bell, D. (1959). One road from Marx: on the vision of socialism, and the fate of workers’ control, in socialist thought. World Politics, 11(04), 491–512.
Berline, P. (1947). Russian religious philosophers and the Jews (Soloviev, Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Struve, Rozanov and Fedotov). Jewish Social Studies, 9, 271–318.
Bhambra, G. K. (2013). The possibilities of, and for, global sociology: a postcolonial perspective. Political Power and Social Theory, 24, 295–314.
Bhambra, G. K. (2014). Introduction: knowledge production in global context: power and coloniality. Current Sociology, 10.1177/0011392114524504.
Burawoy, M. (2005). 2004 American Sociological Association Presidential Address: for public sociology. British Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 259–294.
Burawoy, M. (2014). Sociology as a vocation: moral commitment and scientific imagination. Current Sociology Monographs, 62(2), 279–284.
Code of laws of the Russian Empire (9), 1857, 572.
Confino, M. (1972). On intellectuals and intellectual traditions in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Russia. Daedalus, 101, 117–149.
Davis, H., & Erofeev, S. (2011). Reframing society and culture in post-Soviet Russia. Comparative Sociology, 10(5), 710–734.
Dimke, D. V. (2012). Classic without classics: social and cultural origins of soviet sociology style. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 6, 97–106.
Dobrenkov, V. (Ed.) (1998). Sociology. Moscow
Dolinin, A. S. (1987). Dostoevsky among the Members of the Petrashevsky Circle. Russian Studies in Literature, 23(3), 137–177.
Durrenberger, E. P. (1984). Chayanov, peasants, and economic anthropology. New York: Academic Press Inc.
Efremenko, D., & Evseeva, Y. (2012). Studies of social solidarity in Russia: tradition and modern trends. The American Sociologist, 43(4), 349–365.
Efremenko D., & Krotov P. (Eds.) (2012). Pitirim Sorokin: New materials for academic biography. Moscow.
Fergusson, D. (Ed.). (2010). The Blackwell companion to nineteenth-century theology. Wiley.
Firsov, B. (2001). History of soviet sociology in 1950–1980: lections. Saint-Petersburg.
Gane, N. (2011). Measure, value and the current crises of sociology. Sociology Review, 59(s2), 151–173.
Gorshkov, M. (2012). Society - Sociology - State powers: on the question of interaction. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 7, 23–28.
Harcave, S. (1964). First blood: The Russian Revolution of 1905. Macmillan.
Harrison, M. (1979). Chayanov and the Marxists. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 7(1), 86–100.
Kareev, N. (1996). Foundations of Russian sociology. Moscow
Klyuchevskii, V. O. (2002). Selected lectures from the “Course of Russian history”. In N. A. Mininkov (Ed.), Rostov-on-Don
Krotov, P. (2012). Pitirim Sorokin studies in Russia in the context of the new section on altruism, morality, and social solidarity in the American Sociological Association. The American Sociologist, 43(4), 366–373.
Kuznetsov, V. (2005). National goals—the fundamental problem of sociology. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 4, 2–30.
Lavrov, P. (1965). Historical letters. Philosophy and Sociology (2). Moscow.
Louçã, F. (1999). Nikolai Kondratiev and the early consensus and dissensions about history and statistics. History of Political Economy, 31(1), 169–205.
Mikhailovsky, N. (1909). Omnibus edition, 1, p. 492. Saint-Petersburg, Stasyulevich.
Mikhailovsky, N. (1922). What is progress? Moscow, Koloss.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mochulsky, K. (1971). Dostoevsky: His life and work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Morillas, J. (2008). The fight against the French Revolution: Dostoevsky as a political thinker. The Dostoevsky Journal: An Independent Review, 8, 1–24.
Nichols, L. T. (2009). Public sociology: problematics, publicity, and possibilities. The American Sociologist, 40(4), 233–234.
Nichols, L. T. (2012). Sorokin as lifelong Russian intellectual: the enactment of an historically rooted sensibility. The American Sociologist, 43(4), 374–405.
Olshanski, V. (1994). Russian sociological tradition of the sixties and the current world. Proceedings of the Simposium of Russian Academy of Science, Institute of Sociology (pp. 61–62). Moscow.
Osipov, G. (2004). Renaissance of Russian sociology (1960–1990): historical review. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 3, 24–30.
Osipov, G. (2009). Russian sociology: past and present. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 3, 8–14.
Podvoiski, D. G. (2009). ‘Public sociology’ past and present: specifying co-ordinates. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 5, 13–23.
Pushkin, A. (2003). Eugene Onegin. London: Penguin.
Radaev, V. (2013). Russian sociology in search for its identity. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 7, 3–17.
Raeff, M. (1966). The Decembrist movement. Englewood Cliffs: NJ Prentice-hall.
Raeff, M. (1990). Russia abroad: A cultural history of the Russian emigration, 1919–1939. New York: Oxford University Press.
Romanovski, N. (2012). The quality of sociological knowledge (editor’s comments). Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 5, 39–47.
Rusanov, N. (1907). P.L. Lavrov (essay about his life and activities). Byuloe (2)
Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology, 41(5), 885–899.
Smith, M. C. (1994). Social science in the crucible: The American debate over objectivity and purpose, 1918–1941. Durham: Duke University Press.
Sokolov, M. (2011). Labor markets, stratification and careers in soviet sociology. Economic Sociology, 12(4), 37–72.
Sorokin, P. A. (1956). Fads and foibles in sociology. Chicago: Regnery.
Stanziani, A. (2008). Serfs, slaves, or wage earners? The legal status of labour in Russia from a comparative perspective, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. Journal of Global History, 3(2), 183–202.
Stavrou, T. G. (Ed.). (1983). Art and culture in nineteenth-century Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Steiner, L. (2007). Gercen’s Tragic Bildungsroman: love, autonomy, and maturity in Aleksandr Gercen’s Byloe i Dumy. Russian Literature, 61(1–2), 139–173.
Stevenson, A. (Ed.). (2010). Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Terras, V. (1974). Belinskij and Russian literary criticism: The heritage of organic aesthetics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Timasheff, N. (1966). The sociological theories of Maksim M. Kovalevsky. In A. Simirenko (Ed.), Soviet sociology. Historical antecedents and current appraisals (pp. 83–99). Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
Tolstova, U. (2013). Has the efficiency of sociological research in Russia increased in the last 100 years? Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 7, 59–69.
Toshchenko, Z. T. (2013). New trends in the development of Russian sociology. Sotsiologicheskije Issledovanija, 4, 3–13.
Turner, J. H. (2005). Is public sociology such a good idea? The American Sociologist, 36, 27–45.
Vilenskaya, E. (1979). N.K. Mikhailovsky and his ideological role in narodnichestvo movement of 70- beginning of 80-s of XIX century. Moscow.
Voronkov, V., & Zdravomyslova, E. (1996). Emerging political Sociology in Russia and Russian transformation. Current Sociology, 44(3), 40–52.
Walicki, A. (2010). Milestones and Russian intellectual history. Studies in East European Thought, 62(1), 101–107.
Wallerstein, I. (2000). Globalization or the age of transition? A long-term view of the trajectory of the world-system. International Sociology, 15(2), 249–265.
Yadov V., & Grathoff, R. (1994). Introduction. Proceedings of the Symposium of Russian Academy of Science, Institute of Sociology (pp. 3–5). Moscow.
Youzhakov, S. (1995). Subjective method in sociology. Moscow
Zayanchkovsky, P. (1954). Serfdom abolishment in Russia. M., 292.
Zdravomyslova, E. (2008). Make way for professional sociology! Public sociology in the Russian context. Current Sociology, 56(3), 405–414.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sorokin, P. The Russian Sociological Tradition from the XIXth Century Until the Present: Key Features and Possible Value for Current Discussions. Am Soc 46, 341–355 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-015-9258-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-015-9258-9