Abstract
In his 1913 pamphlet, Marxism and the Nationalities Question, Stalin began his definition of a nation as follows:1
What is a nation?
A nation is, above all, a community, a definite community of people. This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Bretons, Teutons, and so on. The same can be said of the English, Germans and others, who consolidated into nations out of different races and tribes.
Thus, a nation is not racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people, [my italics]
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a detailed analysis of this turn in the period from 1933 to 1938, see Terry Martin, ‘An Affirmative Action Empire: Ethnicity and the Soviet State, 1923–1938’ (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1996), pp. 932–82. For its continuation after the Second World War, see Yuri Slezkine, ‘The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism’, Slavic Review v. 53 (Summer 1994), p. 449
For an early appreciation of the personalistic nature of Stalinist society, see Joseph Berliner, Factory and Manager in the USSR (Cambridge, MA, 1957), pp. 182–230. For recent studies of these issues which, to my mind, exemplify the neo-traditionalist approach, see Julie Hessler, ‘Culture of Shortages: a Social History of Soviet Trade, 1917–1953’ (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1996); Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr, ‘Clientelism and the Roots of Post-Soviet Disorder’, in Ronald Grigor Suny, ed., Transcaucasia, Nationalism, and Social Change (Ann Arbor, 1994), pp. 341–76; Sarah Davies, Popular Opinion in Stalin’s Russia (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 147–82; Merle Fainsod, Smolensk under Soviet Rule (Cambridge, MA, 1958), pp. 396–405; Golfo Alexopoulos, The Ritual Lament: a Narrative of Appeal in the 1920s and 1930s’, Russian History v. 24 (1997), pp. 117–29
Sheila Fitzpatrick, ‘Supplicants and Citizens: Public Letter-Writing in Soviet Russia in the 1930s’, Slavic Review v. 55 (1996), pp. 78–105.
It would also allow the socialist high culture to be propagated more efficiently through the use of national languages. Isabelle Kreindler, ‘A Neglected Source of Lenin’s Nationality Policy’, Slavic Review v. 36 (March 1977), pp. 86–100.
For Stalin’s comments on this issue, see Stalin, Marksizm i natsional’no-kolonial’nyi vopros, pp. 158, 192–4. Rossiiskii Tsentr Khraneniia i Izucheniia Dokumentov Noveishei Istorii (RTsKhlDNI), f. 558, op. 1, d. 4490 (1929), 11. 1–2. The Bolshevik goal appeared to be the transformation of nationality into a purely symbolic identity, which would in no way interfere with their sociological transformation. This goal is somewhat similar to Herbert J. Gans’ interpretation of what has happened to ethnicity in America. Herbert J. Gans, ‘Symbolic Ethnicity: the Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America’, Ethnic and Racial Studies v. 2 (1979), pp. 9–17.
I was unable to find any discussion of nationality in the documentation surrounding passportization in 1932–3, nor did Nathalie Moins, ‘Passeportisation, statistique des migrations et controle de l’identité sociale’, Cahiers du Monde russe v. 38 (1997), pp. 587–600.
For the analysis of class, I am relying on Sheila Fitzpatrick, ‘Ascribing Class: the Construction of Social Identity in Soviet Russia’, Journal of Modern History v. 65 (December 1993), pp. 745–70.
Ibid., pp. 769–70; Nove, pp. 214–16. Here one should note that the extreme social mobility produced by Stalinist industrialization (as well as periodic attacks on elites) meant that an even relatively static estate system could not and did not emerge. The status system that did emerge does, however, bear greater resemblance to the estate systems of bureaucratic absolutism (such as Petrine Russia and its table of ranks) than classic feudalism, since in the former system the state’s primacy allowed it to rank even its elites and provide upward social mobility to a greater degree than the weaker feudal state. In such systems, honor depends more on one’s service (sluzhba) than one’s birth. For the difference between the two systems, see Max Weber, Economy and Society v. 2 (Berkeley, 1968), pp. 1068–88.
The closest thing to an enemy nation was the quasi-ethnic Cossack soslovie, who were periodically singled out for group persecution. Peter Holquist, ‘“Conduct Merciless Mass Terror.” Decossackization on the Don, 1919’, Cahiers du monde russe v. 38 (January–July 1997), pp. 127–62
Nubuo Shimotomai, ‘A note on the Kuban Affair, 1932–1933’, Acta Slavica Iaponica v. 1 (1983), pp. 39–56
In addition to Martin, ‘The Origins of Soviet Ethnic Cleansing’, see N. F. Bugai, L. Beriia — I. Stalinu:’ soglasno vashemu ukazaniiu ...’ (Moscow, 1995). Mikolaj Iwanov, Pierwszy narod ukarany. Polacy v zviazku radzieckim 1921–1939 (Warsaw, 1991); Jean-Jacques Marie, Les Peuples Déportes D’Union Soviétique (Paris, 1995), pp. 21–33; Michael Gelb, ‘The Western Finnic Minorities and the Origins of the Stalinist Nationalities Deportations’, Nationalities Papers v. 24 (June 1996), pp. 237–68
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2000 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martin, T. (2000). Modernization or Neo-traditionalism? Ascribed Nationality and Soviet Primordialism. In: Hoffmann, D.L., Kotsonis, Y. (eds) Russian Modernity. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230288126_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230288126_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-41292-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-28812-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)