RICERCA ITALIANA     

Russia in the French Mirror and France in the Russian Mirror: Culture, Politics and Historiography (1789-1989)

Università di Pisa

Abstract

The project aims to set up a small but tight-knit research group in order to explore French reflection on Russia and Russian reflection on France, within the temporal framework of the two great Revolutions that involved these countries. Research will start out from the assumption that such a vast theme can produce better scientific results by isolating several circumscribed thematic nodes, which will form the focus of privileged attention. This project will address the construction of identity categories (concerning both cultural and political identity) and the historiographic debate on the two Revolutions. <<<

Principal Investigator

Regina POZZI Università di PISA

Research Objectives

The research group was set up not only with the aim of investigating Russian and French attitudes in the field of political and cultural thinking, but also to examine in greater depth the historiographic production on the two revolutionary experiences. Thus the research project will address two distinct, albeit intertwined, issues.
During the nineteenth century, France and Russia were situated at the two opposite extremes of the modernisation and, more generally, transformation processes that were taking place in Europe. They symbolise two positions that stood poles apart not only on the political-juridical plane but also in the economic-social sphere, while the horizon of "high" culture, which to some extent still reflected the heritage of the Age of Enlightenment, seemed to constitute the only aspect maintaining a link between such radically different situations. The apparent incommunicability between men and women shaped by so vastly differing cultural and political frameworks is here taken as the privileged field of investigation. It is known that the process through which identity categories are built up utilises, among other things, conceptual tools fashioned in order to define and configure the respective fields of belonging: most often through wide-ranging dichotomic tools (in this case nature/culture; culture/cultures; civilisation/barbarism; individualism/holism; East/West), but also through the definition of sets founded on hierarchies of value (hierarchies of civilisations, hierarchies of race, hierarchies of Nations). The history of thought and civilisation reveals that in seeking to trace the origin of such processes it is advantageous to explore the reflection of individual thinkers, who may at times have been partially aware of the momentousness of the age in which they lived. Frequently, it was their contemplation of otherness that prompted them to explore a specific aspect in their endeavour to reach a greater understanding of its nature. However, the important point resides in the manner in which historiography is called upon to interpret the scope of explorations. Over two centuries ago Jean-Jacques Rousseau became aware that in order to grasp the nature of things it is necessary first and foremost to discover that two forms can correspond to the same essence. But it would be mistaken to suggest that the analytical procedure advocated by the philosopher from Geneva could be defined as comparative, for in actual fact he underlined that the true motivation underlying a subject who investigates otherness is the quest for better self-knowledge.
These methodological issues provide the inspiration for the first part of the research project, which, with the intent of highlighting significant moments of the respective cultures (only later adopting a comparative perspective), will focus on some salient aspects of French reflection on Russia and vice versa. The time frame to be studied is fairly vast inasmuch as it ideally embraces the two hundred years extending from the outbreak of the '89 Revolution to the accomplishment of the Bolshevik Revolution. This notwithstanding, it is important to note that with regard to study of political and cultural categories, this project will not undertake to cover the entire period without solution of continuity. Rather, emphasis will be placed on some thematic issues of particular significance that involve above all the "long" nineteenth century. Nor will it be claimed that the thematic framework is homogeneous, as it is not always possible to set up a comparison between what Russian thinkers sought to derive from reflection on France or French thinkers on Russia: for France – at least in nineteenth-century perception – aspired to present itself as a paladin of modernity and equality, while Russia appeared to be condemned to stagnating in backwardness and oppression. Nevertheless, it should not be taken for granted that in the field of human and social sciences dishomogeneity represents a non-value: on the contrary, the consciously asymmetric nature of this project, structured as it is into the proposal of individual case studies, is in the eyes of its members to be counted as a strong point rather than a weakness.
The second question that gives rise to this project, justifying and providing support for the decision to study these countries, is linked to the two-stage reflexes of the respective Revolutions. If the shadow of the French revolution was projected onto the entire historical scene of nineteenth-century Europe, perhaps in no other country did the echo of the great late eighteenth-century political-social cataclysm reverberate so strongly as in Russia. From Radiscev onwards, the Russian radicals and revolutionaries reflected on the French events, at times distancing themselves therefrom (as did the Decabrists, who sought to draw inspiration from the 1820 Spanish unprising in order to forestall a popular uprising which could have triggered a new Terror). The French nineteenth century social and socialist movement likewise acted as a beacon for the Russian revolutionaries, who on occasion on occasion admired it while at other times considering it as an inappropriate model for their country. Suffice it to recall the experience of Herzen, who, precisely in 1848, bitterly disappointed after the crushing of the Paris insurrection in June, discovered "Russian socialism", contrasting it with the western world, judging the latter to be old and decadent (memorable, in this regard, was the polemics between himself and Michelet). No less important, however, was the impact of the Russian revolutionary experience on France. As is known, the 1917 revolution and the Bolshevik victory opened a new chapter in European and world history. In France, in addition to the general repercussions that were common to other countries (in the first place, the birth of the Communist party), peculiar and singular effects made themselves felt in the cultural sphere. For thereafter, the historiography on the French revolution (as testified in the celebrated leaflet by Albert Mathiez, Le Bolchévisme et le Jacobinisme), could not fail to draw inspiration from the Russian events. This marked the beginning of historical comparison between the two Revolutions, which long maintained – and indeed still reveals today – a more journalistic than scientific approach.
Echoes, reflexes and reverberations have continued to characterise the historiography of both countries, and in the case of the USSR, the phases of political struggle as well: the obsessive memory of 1794 played a part in the introduction of the NEP (which Lenin promoted having in mind, to some extent, the defeat of Robespierre and the Jacobins), while the ghost of the "Thermidorian reaction" was to become one of the mainstays in Trotsky's polemics against Stalin. The crisis of the communist regimes and the fall of the Berlin wall, which took place simultaneously with the solemn festivities commemorating the bicentenary of the French Revolution, ultimately revived polemics and discussions which in actual fact had never completely faded. But this time the debate took on a new connotation inasmuch as the left-wing movements of Marixist tendency looked at the "1789 principles" from a different perspective, in their turn discovering and proclaiming their "universal value". Thus it is necessary to start from the end in order to attempt to understand the meaning of the crisis of a tradition founded on political voluntarism. <<<

Timescale

24 months

National and international background

If one excludes travel literature and works dealing with diplomatic relations, as well as the field of comparative historiography on the two Revolutions, the research project proposed here is not accompanied – save for a very few exceptions – by a robust literature that can serve as a reference framework. This is rather surprising if one considers that the theme is recurrent in the political-cultural discourse of the respective countries and is of considerable relevance for the history of European culture tout court. But it is clear that the eighteenth century, with the intense cultural exchange prompted by the Age of Enlightenment, and the entire twentieth century, with the hegemonic role assumed by the Soviet Union - in cultural relations as well - have formed the major focus of attention on the part of scholars profiling the history of the two countries. This has produced significant studies which, however, are often situated upstream or downstream from the case studies identified here. Despite this, point A of the bibliographical references lists some studies of particular interest for the general approach adopted.

More circumscribed, and rather more homogeneous with respect to an important sector of this research project, is the contribution deriving from the historiography on the two Revolutions. Taken individually, the Revolutions have generated an enormous range of literature of which it would be impossible to give a full account, even if attention were limited to Russian and French production. (One example suffices: throughout the Soviet period, studies devoted to the singular figure of Babeuf were fairly numerous; although inspired by ideal and ideological motivations, such studies were also favoured by the extensive documentary material present in the Moscow archives). One manner of limiting the vast range of available material is to apply the inclusion criterion, that is to say, to restrict attention to works that deal with both revolutionary processes. Some general research lines must nevertheless be taken into consideration (mentioned in point B of the bibliographical references): international reflection on the great season of European Revolutions; several essays that address the contribution of individual thinkers; the historiographic approach – still a hotly debated point of polemics today – which tends to link rather than distinguish the Jacobin and the Bolshevik experience.

Important scientific concepts, although not centered on specific themes forming part of this project, derive from some sectors of historical, anthropological and politological science.
The perspective of cultural interactions, concerned in particular with the theme of diversity and differences, is fully in harmony with the scientific framework of interest here. Particularly important is the outcome of many years of research seeking to conceptualise cultural and ideological differences, working on the dichotomy homo hierarchicus / homo aequalis, and aiming to reconstruct the advent of individualism from a historical-philosophical standpoint. Equally helpful is the attempt to hold together, within a thematic grid structured to address a number of specific problems, the history of the contemplation of human diversity as depicted first by a civilisation, then by a nation. Significant contributions also come from some aspects of intellectual history and cultural anthropology, as well as the indications that can be drawn from a large body of essays on the history of culture and European thought, from which interesting suggestions can be derived concerning the methodological implications inherent in the study of cultural reflexes. In addition, relevant considerations can be found both in some studies devoted to the conceptualisation of political categories and also in the extensive body of essays dedicated to the history of doctrines and ideologies. Some of these contributions, although touching only marginally on the countries which form the central object of this research project, form an indispensable basis for the overall structuring of the project and thus constitute an important scientific heritage underpinning this research activity.
Naturally, the typology of these studies is extremely heterogeneous, featuring at times individual thinkers, at other times categories, or periods of culture or politics. But some of the more important contributions will be mentioned in point C of the bibliographical references.

A significant portion of the scientific framework from which this research project starts out is composed of the activity already carried out by the researchers who are presenting the project (as shown in point D of the bibliographical references). It is worth pointing out that the composition of the research unit has been designed to explore both viewpoints in a single operational location, that is to say, with the idea that the research should be conducted with the benefit of closely linked cooperation among the participants. To this end the unit will also avail itself of the contribution of Russian history specialists and French history specialists who have a significant scientific curriculum dealing with the political-cultural history of the countries under study. Although their enquiry is based on different standpoints, the field of political and cultural investigation (Cassina 1996; Venturi 2001; Carpi 2002; Cassina 2002; Carpi 2004; Cinnella 2005) and that of the history of historiography (Pozzi 1996 and 2004) forms the forms the core of many of the contributions springing from previous studies.
Mention should also be made of the noteworthy outcome of two research projects of significant national interest (see the coordinator's scientific curriculum), which have, within a fairly rapid time frame for the standard of the human and social sciences, produced valuable results from the heuristic perspective (Alimento-Cassina 2002; Donzelli-Pozzi 2003).
More specifically, it is important to call attention to two recent contributions that address themes which have an affinity with the present research project: a study centering on the perception of pre-Soviet Russia by Italian historiography (Venturi 2004) and a book review that discusses the presumed link between Jacobinism and Bolshevism (Cinnella 2005). <<<