In the wake of the Decembrist Revolt in 1825, those individuals with educated backgrounds were left questioning their place in society. The Saunders reading calls them the “post-Decembrist” and points at the “social displacement” as a catalyst for the emergence of the 1840 Intelligentsia. The nobles felt themselves being displaced, while the non-nobles sought upward movement now that they had been educated. The discontent that the two groups share is not what divided them, but instead their ideology. After the events in 1825 it became evident to the people that direct action would be met with harsh consequences, but discussion and sharing of ideologies was able to continue. Even with a Nicholas’ edict of 1827 that limited secondary school and universities, people were still able to get educated and form their own ideas from their studies. This combined with Nicholas’s copyright laws in 1828 that encouraged publishing by making it more profit centered made it easy to foster ideas and discussion. Even when censorship became harsher later in Nicholas’s reign publications still were able to imply their more radical ideas that the government would not approve of. Saunders argues that the increased censorship and need to write subtly bolstered the Intelligentsia instead of weakening them. The need to read closely and to search for meaning allowed for both deeper and much more imaginative interpretations as to what the writer truly wanted to convey in their works. The quote by Herzen in 1850, “Superficially Russia remained stationary under Nicholas I, but deep down everything changed, questions became more complicated and solutions less simple,” does well in explaining the growing movement and dissident community of intellectuals. As well as giving a rise to many journals and works of literature, another thing that gave rise to the Intelligentsia movement were the small private circles that people gathered in. These private circles allowed for sharing of ideas openly that would not be allowed in publications with fellow intellectuals.
The two groups that defined this movement were the Slavophiles, and the Westerners. While they were two different groups they shared a lot in common, in the words of Saunders “the two sides disagreed about means more than ends,” and in my opinion best summed up by Herzen when he compares the two groups, “like Janus, or the two headed eagle, they and we looked in different directions while one heart throbbed within us.” The Slavophiles main idea was a return to older Russian traditions, while not wanting to throw out the advances afforded to them through association with the West, they wish to reclaim a Russian identity. The Westernizers do not claim as outlined of a goal as the Slavophiles but have ideas that center around embracing the ways of their western counterparts.
One of the parts of the reading that I found most relevant was in the conclusion where Saunders mentions that the Helgian believes that all the intellectuals of the period seemed to share “implied movement.” While the Decembrist’s that came before them tried to push towards a new age and took action towards it, the “Intelligentsia” that arose in the 1840’s during the reign of Nicholas I spent all of their time discussing their ideas and instead of actually acting for a change in the status quo that their writings and discussions talked about, instead laid the groundwork for future generations to enact the change that they “threatened.”
Discussion questions
How important was the fact that Nicholas I started censoring the work that was being published more heavily? Would the movement have actually gained the footing it did if there was less need for subtly that forced people to read so closely into the meaning of their journals and books?
Saunders points to examples of the Slavophiles and the Westernizers both working together and against each other. He also brings up the fact that they both have similar goals with only a few polarizing ideas. Seeing as both groups had individuals with very similar ideas would it have made sense for the two groups to work together instead of separately?
In my reading, the Slavophiles seemed to be merely an outgrowth of Romanticism. Their emphasis on the Russian folk, the origin of Russian civilization, and the irrationality of the Russian way of life as opposed to the rational thought of Western Europe shares much resemblance with the focus of many European romantics. What interested me especially though as the invocation of Hegel by the end of the reading, since Hegel dips his toe in both worlds. On one hand, he believed in that reason is the culmination of human history, and on the other hand, believed that history is embodied in different “peoples” divided into different nations. It would be interesting to go deeper into how Hegel initially entered into Russian academic thought.
Whether Nicholas I censored or not, a type of intelligentsia would have developed. More and more people were getting educated, which means more and more people had ideas about many subjects. If Nicholas hadn’t censored, writers would have printed their ideas openly, which would lead to a flowering of intellectual thought (at some point, eventually). Nicholas did, however, censor, and thus writers got more creative in how they spread the ideas they felt censorship might block were they stated openly. In each case, there was a base of educated people who had the tools to analyze literary thought, and who were ready (perhaps even hungry) for an intellectual movement.
Though the Slavophiles and Westernizers were very similar, working together would have been infeasible. They both wanted more for Russia, but an eagle pulling the nation in two different directions would do no more for Russia than the groups operating on their own (perhaps less, if they spent their time fighting). Considering membership in each group was eclectic, combining the two groups would lead to more internal division than productiveness, in my opinion.
The schism between Slavophiles and Westernizers was an unsurmountable gulf between two different branches of sociopolitical thought. Had they been able to reconcile any of their disagreements, then we would not be discussing them as two different categories of Russian intellectuals.
To me, censoring is a natural response to heightened publishing (see: Catherine the Great). Especially in a monarchy.
I agree with Dasha, censoring would not have stopped the development of the intelligentsia. One way or another they would have been able to gain ground.