the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal ofInterdisciplinary History

Russia's Rulers under the Old Regime by Dominic C. B. LievenReview by: Gregory L. FreezeThe Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Summer, 1990), pp. 150-152Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/204935 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 08:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The MIT Press and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal ofInterdisciplinary History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof Interdisciplinary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.53 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:40:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

150 | GREGORY L. FREEZE

interaction of these demographic and political patterns had wide-ranging repercussions, "connections" if you will, on both the home districts and immigrant communities. The authors' explication of the connections within regions of Scandinavia and across the Atlantic is less satisfac- tory-in large part because their summary treats each country individ- ually rather comparing the diverse regions across national boundaries within Scandinavia.

If they are sensitive to the behavioral patterns of migration, the authors are much less astute at exploring the "mind" of the immigrant and the process of cultural change among Scandinavians which was a result of migration across the Atlantic. Cultural adaptation in the United States, for example, is discussed almost exclusively in the framework of Scandinavian institutions. Yet, as a part of a trans-Atlantic world which underwent similar cultural innovations, the Nordic migrants provide a marvelous opportunity to discuss similarities and disparities of cultural change, an opportunity which is not seized. The book, in short, is a valuable addition to the critical field of migration research, yet it ironi- cally also highlights many of the challenges that scholars face when they attempt to investigate migration.

Jon Gjerde University of California, Berkeley

Russia's Rulers under the Old Regime. By Dominic C. B. Lieven (New Haven, Yale University Press, I989) 407 pp. $35.00

This study is a collective biography of the 2I5 men appointed by Nich- olas II (I894-I917) to the Russian State Council (Gosudarstvennyi sovet). In the nineteenth century, this body stood at the summit of the Russian bureaucratic structure, operating as the chief advisory body on civil legislation and budget. In 1906, it was reconstituted as the upper house of the new "parliamentary monarchy." In both phases, it played a major role in bureaucratic politics and policy-making. Although other scholars have examined the State Council, Lieven examines this body not for its own sake, but to identify the power elite in late Imperial Russia. His approach is based largely on the assumption that elevation to the State Council was the mark of success for a bureaucratic career.1

I See, for example, Heide W. Whelan, Alexander III and the State Council (New Bruns- wick, 1982); A. P. Borodin, "Gosudarstvennyi sovet v 19II-1914 gg," unpub. Ph.D. diss. (Moscow State Univ., 1977); Alexandra Shecket, "The Imperial State Council and the Policies of P. A. Stolypin, I905-19II," unpub. Ph.D. diss. (Columbia Univ., I974); W. E. Mosse, "Aspects of Tsarist Bureaucracy: Recruitment to the Imperial State Council, 1855-1914," Slavonic and East European Review, LVII (I979), 240-254; idem, "Russian

Bureaucracy at the End of the Ancien Regime: The Imperial State Council, I897-1915," Slavic Review, XXXIX (1980), 616-632.

150 | GREGORY L. FREEZE

interaction of these demographic and political patterns had wide-ranging repercussions, "connections" if you will, on both the home districts and immigrant communities. The authors' explication of the connections within regions of Scandinavia and across the Atlantic is less satisfac- tory-in large part because their summary treats each country individ- ually rather comparing the diverse regions across national boundaries within Scandinavia.

If they are sensitive to the behavioral patterns of migration, the authors are much less astute at exploring the "mind" of the immigrant and the process of cultural change among Scandinavians which was a result of migration across the Atlantic. Cultural adaptation in the United States, for example, is discussed almost exclusively in the framework of Scandinavian institutions. Yet, as a part of a trans-Atlantic world which underwent similar cultural innovations, the Nordic migrants provide a marvelous opportunity to discuss similarities and disparities of cultural change, an opportunity which is not seized. The book, in short, is a valuable addition to the critical field of migration research, yet it ironi- cally also highlights many of the challenges that scholars face when they attempt to investigate migration.

Jon Gjerde University of California, Berkeley

Russia's Rulers under the Old Regime. By Dominic C. B. Lieven (New Haven, Yale University Press, I989) 407 pp. $35.00

This study is a collective biography of the 2I5 men appointed by Nich- olas II (I894-I917) to the Russian State Council (Gosudarstvennyi sovet). In the nineteenth century, this body stood at the summit of the Russian bureaucratic structure, operating as the chief advisory body on civil legislation and budget. In 1906, it was reconstituted as the upper house of the new "parliamentary monarchy." In both phases, it played a major role in bureaucratic politics and policy-making. Although other scholars have examined the State Council, Lieven examines this body not for its own sake, but to identify the power elite in late Imperial Russia. His approach is based largely on the assumption that elevation to the State Council was the mark of success for a bureaucratic career.1

I See, for example, Heide W. Whelan, Alexander III and the State Council (New Bruns- wick, 1982); A. P. Borodin, "Gosudarstvennyi sovet v 19II-1914 gg," unpub. Ph.D. diss. (Moscow State Univ., 1977); Alexandra Shecket, "The Imperial State Council and the Policies of P. A. Stolypin, I905-19II," unpub. Ph.D. diss. (Columbia Univ., I974); W. E. Mosse, "Aspects of Tsarist Bureaucracy: Recruitment to the Imperial State Council, 1855-1914," Slavonic and East European Review, LVII (I979), 240-254; idem, "Russian

Bureaucracy at the End of the Ancien Regime: The Imperial State Council, I897-1915," Slavic Review, XXXIX (1980), 616-632.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.53 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:40:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS | 151

Structurally, Lieven's study combines both statistical prosopogra- phy and individual biography. Drawing upon an impressive array of

printed and archival sources, the author provides a multifaceted portrait of this elite-origins, career paths, wealth, education, and the like.

Particularly noteworthy is his meticulous use of the sources (including the formuliarnye spiski, service records), enabling him to correct errors and unvalidated assumptions in previous scholarship.2 Lieven demon- strates that an aristocratic core still existed (with some 60 percent claim-

ing multigenerational and even medieval roots of nobility), but that

ability and education-and not only connections-were also vital for a successful rise to the very top of the bureaucratic apparatus. Further, small vignettes and some more extended biographical sketches (for ex-

ample, of Petr N. Durnovo, Anatolii N. Kulomzin, and Aleksei D. and Aleksandr D. Obolensky) delineate the complex mentalite of this elite, showing remarkable diversity in education, experience, and conviction. The final chapter, devoted to the group's failure and extinction as an old elite, provides a sympathetic but judicious analysis of the flaws in the elite itself and of the broader problems in autocratic and bureaucratic

politics under the ancien regime. The statistical portrait of the group and the engaging sketches of individuals represent a valuable contribu- tion to the already substantial historiography on Russian prerevolution- ary bureaucacy.

At the same time, this study elicits some serious reservations, es-

pecially with respect to methodology and research design. First and foremost, one must question whether this population-State Council

appointees-can be equated with "Russia's rulers" (however defined). Were these appointees to the State Council coterminous with "bureau- cratic elite"? If not, can one assume that that they were-in cultural and social terms-representative of those officials who ran the tsarist civil service? Apart from contemporary disparagement of the State Council as a bureaucratic graveyard, a proper sense of Russia's "rulers" must

surely include those middle and high-ranking officials who failed to cross the threshold (because of impolitic acts, accident, or insufficient

longevity) of the State Council.3 A broader definition, based on functional criteria and not merely

organizational membership, would more meaningfully identify the "op- erational elite" that set the agenda, shaped decisionmaking, and deter-

2 By drawing upon a variety of archival and published sources, Lieven is able to provide a far more complete picture of such matters as landholding and, especially, the genealogical roots of these leading families. For an explanation of how his findings modify the conclu- sions of previous researchers (especially Mosse's classification of various clans as ancient or more recent in ennoblement), see the discussion in Lieven's "Appendix A" (377-383). 3 The famous parody was offered by a character in Saltykov-Shchedrin: "My uncle, the

general, had a fit of apoplexy, so he became a Senator, he lost his sight, and then he was made a member of the State Council. If he can only have a new accident, he will die a minister." Cited in Georg Brandes, Impressions of Russia (New York, I966), I 6.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.53 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:40:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

152 GREGORY L. FREEZE

mined the efficacy of implementation.4 Furthermore, this study lacks a diachronic perspective and hence cannot show how this elite-as a body-changed between 1894 and 1914. It is misleading to treat all 215

appointees as a static collectivity, since (because of death and turnover) this population never convened as a contemporaneous body. Without doubt, a longitudinal analysis (more precise than that in Mosse's study) could reveal much about the changing profile of this elite. In addition, although well-informed on the modus operandi of Russian bueaucracy, Lieven's study draws almost exclusively upon the officials' own percep- tions, and not upon an analysis of day-to-day operations (whether before or after elevation to the State Council).

To be sure, it is a great service to make public these materials from the diaries, memoirs, and letters of this elite and thereby to complement the research conducted on earlier stages of the Russian bureaucracy.5 Yet it is important to analyze this elite in terms of its behavior and its performance in the workplace. Finally, Lieven's study would have prof- ited from a critical reading of the recent literature on complex organi- zations-for example, on organizational culture, ecology, and life- cycles.6 This literature would have suggested some interesting questions and lines of inquiry lacking in the older literature on bureaucacy and, especially, its Russian variant.

Gregory L. Freeze Brandeis University

Russian Officialdom in Crisis: Autocracy and Local Self-Government, 1861- ioo1900. By Thomas S. Pearson (New York, Cambridge University Press, I989) 284 pp. $39.50

Russian Officialdom in Crisis is a highly competent narrative study of the formation and reformation of czarist policies of local administration and

4 For analogous methodological assumptions, see Brenda Meehan-Waters, Autocracy and

Aristocracy: The Russian Service Elite of 1730 (New Brunswick, 1982).

5 See, for example, W. Bruce Lincoln, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia's Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1825-1861 (DeKalb, Ill., 1982); Theodore Taranovski, "The Politics of Counter-Reform: Autocracy and Bureaucracy in the Reign of Alexander III, I881-1894,"

unpub. Ph.D. diss. (Harvard Univ., I976). The latter study, of considerable value, evi-

dently escaped Lieven's attention in an otherwise exhaustive study of the literature. 6 The theoretical literature is enormous. For an introduction and reference to the liter-

ature, see: Jeffrey Pfeffer, Organizations and Organization Theory (Boston, 1982); Howard E. Aldrich, Organizations and Environments (New York, 1975; 2nd ed.); Amitai Etzioni, The Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York, 1975; 2nd ed.); John W.

Meyer and W. R. Scott, Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality (Beverly Hills,

I984); Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman, "Structural Inertia and Organizational Change," American Sociological Review, XL (I984), 149-I64; Peter J. Frost et al. (eds.), Organizational Culture (Beverly Hills, I985); Shelby Stewman, "Organizational Demog-

raphy," Annual Review of Sociology, XIV (I988), I73-202; Glenn R. Carroll, "Organiza- tional Ecology," ibid., X (I984), 71-93; Hannan and Freeman, "The Population Ecology of Organizations," American Journal of Sociology, LXXXII (I977), 949-964.

152 GREGORY L. FREEZE

mined the efficacy of implementation.4 Furthermore, this study lacks a diachronic perspective and hence cannot show how this elite-as a body-changed between 1894 and 1914. It is misleading to treat all 215

appointees as a static collectivity, since (because of death and turnover) this population never convened as a contemporaneous body. Without doubt, a longitudinal analysis (more precise than that in Mosse's study) could reveal much about the changing profile of this elite. In addition, although well-informed on the modus operandi of Russian bueaucracy, Lieven's study draws almost exclusively upon the officials' own percep- tions, and not upon an analysis of day-to-day operations (whether before or after elevation to the State Council).

To be sure, it is a great service to make public these materials from the diaries, memoirs, and letters of this elite and thereby to complement the research conducted on earlier stages of the Russian bureaucracy.5 Yet it is important to analyze this elite in terms of its behavior and its performance in the workplace. Finally, Lieven's study would have prof- ited from a critical reading of the recent literature on complex organi- zations-for example, on organizational culture, ecology, and life- cycles.6 This literature would have suggested some interesting questions and lines of inquiry lacking in the older literature on bureaucacy and, especially, its Russian variant.

Gregory L. Freeze Brandeis University

Russian Officialdom in Crisis: Autocracy and Local Self-Government, 1861- ioo1900. By Thomas S. Pearson (New York, Cambridge University Press, I989) 284 pp. $39.50

Russian Officialdom in Crisis is a highly competent narrative study of the formation and reformation of czarist policies of local administration and

4 For analogous methodological assumptions, see Brenda Meehan-Waters, Autocracy and

Aristocracy: The Russian Service Elite of 1730 (New Brunswick, 1982).

5 See, for example, W. Bruce Lincoln, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia's Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1825-1861 (DeKalb, Ill., 1982); Theodore Taranovski, "The Politics of Counter-Reform: Autocracy and Bureaucracy in the Reign of Alexander III, I881-1894,"

unpub. Ph.D. diss. (Harvard Univ., I976). The latter study, of considerable value, evi-

dently escaped Lieven's attention in an otherwise exhaustive study of the literature. 6 The theoretical literature is enormous. For an introduction and reference to the liter-

ature, see: Jeffrey Pfeffer, Organizations and Organization Theory (Boston, 1982); Howard E. Aldrich, Organizations and Environments (New York, 1975; 2nd ed.); Amitai Etzioni, The Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York, 1975; 2nd ed.); John W.

Meyer and W. R. Scott, Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality (Beverly Hills,

I984); Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman, "Structural Inertia and Organizational Change," American Sociological Review, XL (I984), 149-I64; Peter J. Frost et al. (eds.), Organizational Culture (Beverly Hills, I985); Shelby Stewman, "Organizational Demog-

raphy," Annual Review of Sociology, XIV (I988), I73-202; Glenn R. Carroll, "Organiza- tional Ecology," ibid., X (I984), 71-93; Hannan and Freeman, "The Population Ecology of Organizations," American Journal of Sociology, LXXXII (I977), 949-964.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.53 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:40:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions