Social identity and Russian cultural politics: Defining the historian in the pre-reform era

This dissertation investigates the evolution of categories of social identity in the first half of the nineteenth century by exploring the changing ways in which three prominent Moscow University historians--M. T. Kachenovskii (1775-1842), M. P. Pogodin (1800-1875) and S. M. Solov'ev (1820-1879)--defined themselves and each other. A fundamental goal of the work is to contribute to a reconceptualization of imperial Russia's encounter with modernity. The period covered by this study is usually characterized as marking a growing dissonance between modern cultural institutions and a repressive political system, creating irreparable rifts within educated society and between society and the state. These divisions have provided a framework for interpreting the rivalries between Kachenovskii, Pogodin and Solov'ev. However, influenced by recent work in anthropology and cultural history, this dissertation studies the question of identity by examining how the three men structured their own experience. Rather than dissecting their statements for "traditional" and "modern" components, the dissertation explores them for insights into the process through which Russians incorporated some of the new ways of looking at the world coming from western Europe.;The study concludes the following: (1) In the pre-reform period, researchers of Russia's past began articulating standards for the field of history; (2) This "professionalization" occurred largely as a part of efforts by these researchers to defend their legitimacy as critics during contentious polemics over the place of criticism in Russia's enlightenment; (3) Rather than choosing between "state" and "society," the three men saw themselves as serving Russia by pursuing enlightenment along with other good Russians in and out of government; (4) Each of them--and many who interacted with them--depicted progress toward enlightenment as both compatible with and dependent on their personal values (e.g., individual morality, patronage, national glory); (5) This integration of old and new can be seen as a source of cohesiveness among Russia's elites, instead of a symptom of a fractured identity or a disintegrating society due to incomplete modernization. Progress provided a cultural frame of reference for educated Russians that transcended differences in political program and social standing.