Traditionalist braces of the imperial space: "historical Russia'' as a variety of eurasian colonialism

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to prove the unscientific nature of the thesis of “historical Russia” within the borders of the Russian Empire as a means of actualizing the colonial nature and traditionalist essence of management policy in the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th centuries, a component of which was the introduction of a rural self-government on a pan-imperial scale. The methodology of the research is based on the principles of objectivity, historicism, systematicity, scientificity. The following methods have been used: general scientific (logic, analysis, synthesis, generalization, etc.) and special historical (synchronous, diachronic, structural-functional analysis). The scientific novelty consists in substantiating the colonial nature and traditionalist essence of the pan-imperial innovations in the management of the countryside in 1861 – 1917, the purpose of which was to unify the management of all regions incorporated into the Russian Empire as a result of the conquest of the Eurasian territories by the Romanovs and their predecessors – the homelands of the indigenous peoples of the continent. The Conclusion. In 1861 – 1917 in the Russian Empire, which in the “long” 19th century increased significantly due to the conquests of the Romanovs and their predecessors on the Eurasian continent, the axis of administrative modernization became the unification of administrative space as a means of spreading a rural self-government on a pan-imperial scale based on the model of a public village management introduced in the European part of the country by the rural reform of 1861 – 1871. As a result of the reformation, the pan-imperial reform of a rural self-government was implemented in 1861 – 1917, which was based on the synthesis of the rural self-governing traditions of the aborigines with the corresponding practices of the russky mir (traditional communities of the Great Russian provinces). The migration of peasants from European regions contributed to the administrative invasion of local villages. By manipulating their interests, the policy of Orthodoxy and Russification of native inhabitants was carried out against the background of measures to increase the efficiency of taxation of autochthons, their performance of duties for the benefit of the empire, exploitation of local resources, promotion of the loyal attitude of the population to the authorities as a means of preserving local traditions. Such a pseudo-renewal of a village contradicted the goals of modernization, as it was based on the traditional practice of social self-regulation, the primacy of collectivism with a complete subjugation of the individual to the interests of the community. Therefore, the reform of 1861 ‒ 1917 became an attempt to unite the imperial space into a single whole with the help of traditionalist scraps and a manifestation of colonialist policy in regions with a non-Russian indigenous population. Evidence of the failure of this policy was the powerful anti-imperial demonstrations of the peasants at the beginning of the 20th century, which contributed to the country's disintegration and actualized the issue of traditional identity in its regions. In view of this, the thesis of “historical Russia” within the borders of the Russian Empire, which is currently widespread in journalism and political discourse of the russian federation, is inherently anti-scientific, and “historical Russia” is, in fact, a type of Eurasian colonialism.