|
|
| Archive - Influence of the local sociocultural and academic environment to research and educational practice of historical students of the Moscow and St. Petersburg Universities in 80s - early 90s of XIX century - Comments
Questions and answers to the project of Pavel Krasnov
"Influence of the local sociocultural and academic environment to research and educational practice of historical students of the Moscow and St. Petersburg Universities in 80s - early 90s of XIX century "
Lyubov Ulianova, undergraduate:
You argue that the practice of admiration and idol-making at the Moscow University resulted from their seeking of identity and their particular place in the city. But it seems to me that the university's isolation from the city was quite superficial. Emphasizing their otherness they still stayed the part of the local social and cultural environment of the city. To my mind, the relations between students and professors in Moscow, as they are described in the project, look very much alike those ones of traditional and patriarchal character. May there have been just a sort of their own "patriarchy" or paternalism within the university itself that explained students' admiration and making idols of professors?]
P.K. The confrontation between the city and the university in Moscow was not of structures but of cultures and values. The university community was based on values independent of class, giving preferences to the professional and educational background before the social origin. This had been the key principle of recruiting and identifying the so called "educated class" .
On the contrary, the image of the city of Moscow in 1880s and 1890s have to be seen as a mixture of noble, merchant and petty bourgeois cultures where social parameters of the person, first of all the origin, were still very important. At that time vast majority of that society had not considered yet the education as the mean to raise their social status.
As to the personal level, there is no reason to stress down the opposition between the two communities. Indeed, there had been a lot of similarities between the university and the city of Moscow. Whatever group it was, social class, family, student research society or the city and the university communities they were inevitably permeated by inner patrimonial connections, so the emergence of "idols of audience" may be considered a display of this paternalism.
Anton Lebedev, undergraduate
We know that in the Russian universities there were "zemlaychestvos", the steady groups of students coming from the same city or region. Was there any negative influence of these groups to the city-university relationship?]
P.K. It you mean by "negative influence" the aggravation of the city-university confrontation, the student local groups were the organic parts of academic society of the Moscow University and did not play decisive role in its relations with the city. The key principle for those local societies was the unity of participants' geographical or regional origin, more often the same gubernia, county or school district. This reproduced the system of personal relationship typical of Moscow University. It was Moscow where "zemlaychestvos" emerged long before St. Petersburg where they had never become numerous and influential. Sometimes local groups established their own research societies but, as a rule, they were not supervised by professors.
A.L.:What were the signs of "cultural" pressure of the "patriarchal" city to the "local social and cultural environment of the university"?
P.K. The most obvious demonstration of this pressure can be found in the local periodicals of pro-government orientation, for example some newspapers - "Moskovskie Vedomosti" ["Moscow Gazette"] edited by M.N. Katkov and "Grazhdanin" ["The Sitizen"] edited by M.N. Meshersky. It was press of that sort that kept old continuity of portraying the university as "a hotbed of revolution", "lair of schism and unbelief" and bearer of anti-national spirit.
A.L.:What was the nature of the students' admiration of the "idols of audience" - was it personal sympathy or just luck of other sources of knowledge?
P.K. There has been a mixture of sympathy, deference and hunger for knowledge. Of course, student by no means was a "researcher" or "academician" in a true sense of the notion. Being actually confined to the university or even particular department, the narrowness of research communication itself may have made students percept their professors and privat-docents (unestablished university lecturers) as "teachers of life", "prophets" and "research luminaries".
Alexander Fokin, undergraduate:
What were the reasons of scanty membership of Moscow student societies, taking into consideration the popularity of professors, and correspondingly, plurality of St. Petersburg societies, taking into consideration the relative absence of students' admiration as to professors?
P.K. The image and structure of the societies depended on two different quality levels of student research process: the professional and the amateur ones. The first one was key to the construction of the research societies in the Moscow University where professors were widely known not only as lecturers and teachers but also as experts in particular fields of knowledge. Following this narrower profiled research interest, the students had to chose the specific problem to explore, so the membership was naturally restricted. In St. Petersburg professors were seen mainly as lecturers and propagators of historical knowledge that made their societies attractive not only for profiled researchers but also for numerous pursuers of exclusively amateur interest.
Julia Khmelevskaya, Associate Professor, Dept of World History:
You argue that the St. Petersburg professorate had been "assimilated" in the city and thus there was no need for them to get established outside the university. But doesn't their activity on encouraging those "motley" student societies suggest that that may have been the specific mean to get influence and recognition beyond the university?
P.K.:In St. Petersburg establishing the students research society have not always been the initiative of professors. Very often societies emerged spontaneously from "downside", by desire of students themselves or by mutual interest of students and teachers. Unlike their Moscow colleagues, the professors here did not feel so isolated or alienated from the city society, so we can hardly be sure that they had had clear intent to overshadow the "city" by the '"university".
Alexey Budanov, graduate student:
It is known that in the 1920s and 1930s there had been established a sort of worship for research authority the example of which was M.N. Pokrovsky and his "school". May we assume that this phenomenon had actually had a longer story, being actually borrowed from pre-revolutionary times?]
P.K.:This problem have to be approached from two points: the relations within the academic community itself and the extent of exposure to the ideological regulation from outer structures. As to the former, of course, there was some continuity - being the graduate of the Moscow University, Pokrovsky could not avoid the influence of its specific behavioral codes and research patterns. But in 1920s and 1930s it was exactly the government pressure as to methodology and thematic field that gave the Soviet academic structures the character this authoritarian. Before the revolution this regulation was much weaker or almost off. |
Lyudmila Verakhina, undergraduate student
I wonder if there was any faculty exchange between Moscow and St. Petersburg and to what extent did those out-of-town professors manage to get accommodated in new environment?
P.K. Yes, there were outstanding people who changed the universities, I will take only two examples. The first one is the Moscow Universityalumnus, renowned specialist on Medieval History of Western Europe, Professor N.I. Kareev. Having moved from Warsaw to St. Petersburg (1885), he established "The Society of Support of the students of the St. Petersburg University" the main task of that was publishing textbooks and auxiliary materials for self-education of young people. He also became one of the most active members of the Literary Society by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky and, after all, one of the most beloved teachers whose lectures and seminars were attended by students from all departments. The second example is St. Petersburg graduate V.I. Semevsky who moved to Moscow to finish his magister dissertation and then became one of most imminent representatives of V.O. Kluchevsky's school.
L.V.Did the differentials of students perceptions of professorate in Moscow and St. Petersburg affect the research fruitfulness of the societies led by these professors?
P.K.: I think, fruitfulness of joint research in these societies is to be understood from expectations and intentions of the participants themselves. In each particular case the overall success of research work in particular student society depended greatly on the proportion of members pursuing narrow professional and amateur interest. But generally, most of the testimonials (from memoirs etc.) describe research activity in the societies as fruitful and successful, emphasizing positive influence of older colleagues' guidance and supervision. |
Kommentar von Vera Spiertz, Uni Basel
Hallo Pavel Krasnov,
danke fuer Dein Expose, das ich mit Interesse gelesen habe. Dabei sind mir einige Fragen gekommen.
In der zweiten H?lfte der achtziger Jahre war die Situation an russischen Universit?ten gepr?gt durch eine Ausweitung der Macht und durch die Diskriminierung konfessioneller Minderheiten, vor allem der Juden. Studenten verschiedener Universit?ten solidarisierten sich untereinander. Von der Moskauer Universit?t gingen 1987 Studentenproteste ?ber Charkiv nach Odessa aus. Zwei Jahre sp?ter entz?ndeten sich an russischen Universit?ten erneut Studentenproteste gegen staatliche Autorit?ten. Wie erkl?rt sich der R?ckzug der Moskauer Studentenvereinigung auf rein wissenschaftliche Belange vor dem Hintergrund der Proteste an der Universit?t Ende der achtziger Jahre?
Die zweite Frage geht in eine ?hnliche Richtung. Du betonst die Klassen- und Standesprinzipien und traditionellen Werte aus den sechziger und siebziger Jahren, die das Bild von Moskau konturierten. Als hierarchisch charakterisierst Du auch die Beziehungen zwischen Studenten und Professoren. Welchen Einfluss hatten die Professoren auf die Stadt Moskau und wie definierst Du den Begriff ?Stadt?? Verstehst Du die Studenten als ?Objekte kulturellen Lebens? oder auch als Akteure?
Krasnov, Pavel:
Hallo Vera Spiertz,
Vielen Dank fuer Deine Interesse zu meinem Projekt und die zugemailten Fragen und Kommentare. Ich denke, man kann von einer Konkurrenz zwischen zwei Stroemungen in der aktiven Studentenschaft reden: von den Anhaengern der politischen Aktivitaeten (?Politikern?) und den ?Akademikern?, die fuer das ungestoerte Studium plaedierten.
Von dieser Konkurentz wurden die Studententage in Jahren 1889 - 1991 gepraegt. Fuer diese Tagungen wurden die Versuche typisch, ein einheitliches Programm fuer die ganze Studentenschaft zu formulieren, die Koordinationsorgane im Reichsmassstab zu gruenden, die Formen der sozialen Aktivitaet auszuarbeiten. Diese erste Versuche haben gescheitert und erst in den 1., 2. und 3. Streiks (um die Jahrhundertswende) verwirklicht. Organisatotische Unterentwicklung beguenstigte paradoxerweise eine bestimmte Freiheit der individuellen Wahl von Taetigheiten und eine Meinungspluralitaet. Gerade das ermoeglichte fuer einen Teil der Studentenschaft die Flucht in die reine Wissenschaft.
Zu Deiner 2. Frage: fuer mich ist die Stadt eine sinnstiftende kulturelle Einheit: Moskau war sowohl fuer einen grossen Teil der ?gebildeten Gesellschaft? als auch fuer die traditionalistisch denkenden Patrioten ein mythologisiertes Bild und konzentriertes Symbol der russischen vorindustriellen patriarchalischen Ordnung. Die Moskauer Universitaet passte zu diesem Bild kaum. Deshalb wudren die Professoren und Studenten - die ich gleichzeitig als Objekte und Akteure des kulturellen Lebens betrachte, - von einem Teil der Moskauer Bevoelkerung mindestens bis Mitte 90er Jahre negativ empfunden und konnte selber die eigene kulturelle Wahrnehmungsbarriere nicht ueberwinden. |
|
|
Welcome!
