<i>Laska i Poriadok</i>: The Daily Life of the Rural School in Late Imperial Russia

Эклоф, Бен; Peterson, Nadezhda

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9434.2010.00552.x

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between the years of 1904 and 1914 the authorities quadrupled the education budget to 7.21% of the total budget and increased the percentage allocated to primary schools, allowing for significant growth and improvement of primary education, yet they failed to streamline education for non-Russians and to legislate universal primary education (Dowler 2001;Eklof and Peterson 2010;Miller 2000). Debates about the language of instruction for non-Russians continued until 1914 when they were pushed off center-stage by the beginning of the first World War.…”

Section: Retrenchment Of Russificationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians?

Pavlenko

2011

Russ Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to question the traditional view of tsarist language management as a conscious, consistent and long-lasting policy of linguistic russification and denationalization and to consider the actual policies, their context, and impact. Drawing on recent historiographies, I will show that the Russian administration had no unified language policy: its strategies varied significantly across time periods and geographic regions and were mediated by political, ethnic, religious, and class concerns. When russification policies were adopted, the key aim was to establish the dominance of Russian as a high language over Polish, German, and Tatar. At the same time, the authorities never created a comprehensive primary education system and, as a result, failed to spread Russian to the majority of non-Russian peasants. Ethnic elites adopted Russian as an additional language, yet this adoption did not increase their loyalty to the empire: the key outcome of russification policies was the mobilization of emerging national movements.Аннотация Главная задача данной статьи-поставить под вопрос традиционную трактовку имперской языковой политики как сознательной, последовательной, и долговременной политики языковой руссификации и денационализации и рас-смотреть имперские языковые законы и их конечный результат в историческом контексте. Опираясь на современные исторические исследования, я покажу, что имперская администрация не имела единого подхода к языковым вопросам: курс ее политики менялся в зависимости от исторического периода и географического положения региона и находился под влиянием политических, этнических, религиоз-ных, и социальных факторов. В ситуациях, где применялась политика руссификации, ее целью было установление доминации русского языка как языка культуры над польским, немецким, и татарским языками. В то же время, имперская администрация не смогла распространить начальное обучение на всей территории империи и, в результате, не смогла донести русский язык до большинства нерусских крестьян. Члены национальных элит выучили русский как дополнительный язык, но это не A. Pavlenko ( ) 332 A. Pavlenko усилило их лояльность по отношению к империи: главным результатом царской языковой политики была мобилизация национального народного движения.

show abstract

Section: Retrenchment Of Russificationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians?

Pavlenko

2011

Russ Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These reforms are often cited as evidence and explanation of russification, yet this approach is based on ‘the illusion of politics’, a faulty assumption ‘that change comes from the pens of legislators’ (Eklof and Peterson : 9). Its key distortions involve the goals and impact of the reforms.…”

Section: Russification: What Was It and How Did It Affect The Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilingualism in Post‐Soviet Successor States

Pavlenko

2013

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the fourteen successor states began to distance themselves from Russia and its language. This situation was strikingly different from most post-colonial states of Asia, Africa, and Latin America that maintained the languages of the former colonizers. For researchers, the post-Soviet context became a natural sociolinguistic 'experiment', in which the previously shared political and linguistic system offered a common starting point for language reforms and the different outcomes illuminated the effects of demographic, political, economic, and social factors. The purpose of the present article is to outline the key findings of the research to date, to discuss their implications for sociolinguistic theory, and to identify gaps and productive directions for future inquiry.

show abstract

“…The rapid expansion of linguistic Russification also created a sharp shortage of qualified teachers. The state had to lower its standard of selection, which allowed many radically-minded intellectuals to flow into the teaching corps [Eklof and Peterson 2010]. Many young Bolsheviks started their secularization with these teachers.…”

Section: The Bolshevik Revolution: Alienation From Nationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nationalism and Communism as Foes and Friends

Zhou¹

2019

Arch. eur. sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sociologists have noted that the ideological inclusiveness of nationalism varies. By comparing the Bolshevik and Chinese communist revolutionary elites, this article explains that such variation depends on the social strength of nationalism. A strong nationalism is (a) undergirded by a widely diffused national culture that can socialize most radical elites into the nation; (b) kept institutionally open to broad social strata so that lower classes can form a nationalist identity through participation; and (c) universally believed to be a geopolitically feasible anti-colonial revolution so that radical elites can think of engagement as worthwhile and necessary. Using a comparative biographical method probing both nationalists and communists, this article demonstrates that nationalism in Tsarist Russia was far weaker than in post-imperial China. In the former, the nationalist movement excluded communists while, in the latter, communists were incorporated. Therefore, the two communist parties had different understandings of Marxism.

show abstract

Laska i Poriadok: The Daily Life of the Rural School in Late Imperial Russia

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians?

Linguistic russification in the Russian Empire: peasants into Russians?

Multilingualism in Post‐Soviet Successor States

Nationalism and Communism as Foes and Friends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About