This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Endnotes
The most important recent analysis of this variety of Russian nationalism is Walter Laqueur'sBlack Hundred, Harper-Collins, 1993.
For an extensive discussion of nationalism and modernity see Greenfeld,Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, Harvard University Press, 1992.
On this relationship see Simon Schama,Citizens, Knopf, 1989, and Greenfeld, “The Three Identities of France,” inNationalism, op. cit.
There is a growing body of literature subscribing to this view. It includes Martin Malia's classic essay “What is Intelligentsia?” inDaedalus (Summer 1960); Tibor Szamuely'sThe Russian Tradition (Secker and Warburg, 1974), and most recently Richard Pipe'sRussian Revolution (Vintage Books, 1990).
On this point see Grenfeld, “The Scythian Rome: Russia,” inNationalism, op. cit.
On the connection between the nobility and the intelligentsia in Russia see Marc Raeff,Origins of the Russian Intelligentsia, Harcourt, Brace, 1966.
On the “official” Russian nationalism see Andrzej Walicki,The Slavophil Controversy, Clarendon Press, 1975.
Maxim Sokolov, “--Barin i Muzhik,”Stolitsa, 1: 1993, p. 6; “Dvorianstvo,”Entsyklopedicheskii Slovar', Brokhaus and Evfron, v. X., pp. 203–218. Thus one could not be, officially, an educated person without being a nobleman. Members of the intelligentsia who were not noblemen were those who would not complete their education, often because they were expelled from high school or university for academic or disciplinary reasons. This group formed the core of the radical revolutionaries. Incidentally, Lenin was a hereditary nobleman, for his father, though a son of a serf, earned hereditary nobility in service. See Szamuely, op. cit., p. 147.
Some telling evidence regarding the privileged andkept status of the Soviet literary elite may be found in Nadezhda Mandelstam's memoirs (especiallyVtoraia Kniga, Moscow 1990, pp. 59, 74, 160, 162).
Vadim Baranov, “Nesostoyavshiisya Paritet,”Moskovskie Novosti, 18 July, 1993, p. 4.
Maria Chegodayeva, “Pro Mandatu Dolga,” ibid.
V. I. Lenin, “What is to Be Done?”.
Peter Struve, “Intelligentsia i Revoliutsia,”Vekhi (1909), 1991 reprint (Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiia), p. 142.
A. S. Isgoev, “Ob intelligentnoi molodiozhi,”Vekhi, op. cit., pp. 207, 191–2.
For a detailed analysis of Russian nationalism and its development see Greenfeld, “The Scythian Rome: Russia,” op. cit..
Anna Geifman (inThou Shalt Kill, Princeton University Press, 1993) leaves little place to dobut that the concern for the people's well-being was, indeed, among the least of the revolutionary intelligentsia's concerns.
A. I. Herzen,Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii i Pisem, ed. M. K. Lemke (Petrograd, 1915–1925), v. XI, p. 11.
Regarding anti-Western resentment as a stimulant of Russian nationalism see Greenfeld, “The Scythian Rome: Russia,” op. cit..
V. G. Belinsky,Izbrannoe, pp. 370–422.
Sergei Bulgakov (in “Geroism i Podvizhnichestvo,”Vekhi, op. cit.) emphasized the Slavophil thinking of the Westernist revolutionary intelligentsia.
On the nationalist underpinnings of Marxism and its appeal see Greenfeld, “Nationalism and Class Struaggle: Two Forces or One?” inSurvey, Fall 1985, and “Transcending the Nation's Worth” inDaedalus, Summer 1993.
For example, N. A. Berdiayev. See his “Filosofskaya istina i intelligentskaya pravda” inVekhi, op. cit..
on the relationship between status and violence among the revolutionary intelligentsia see Isgoev and Bulgakov, quoted above.
Some discussion of its development in the post-Khrushchev period may be found in Greenfeld, “Kitchen Debate: Russia's Anti-Democratic Intellectuals,”The New Republic, September 1992.
Bulgakov, op. cit., p. 58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Greenfeld, L. Russian nationalism as a medium of revolution: An exercise in historical sociology. Qual Sociol 18, 189–209 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393490
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393490