A source for the social history of late Imperial Russia [The 1895 primary school survey conducted by the Free Economic Society]

1984 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Ruane Hinshaw
Keyword(s):  
Primary School ◽  
Social History ◽  
Late Imperial ◽  
Imperial Russia ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
School Survey

Law and the State in Boris Mironov's Sotsial´naia istoriia Rossii

Slavic Review ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 558-565
Author(s):  
William G. Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Nuclear Family ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Colonial State ◽  
Imperial Russia ◽  
Imperial Period ◽  
The Social ◽  
Demographic Processes ◽  
History Of

A forum on Boris Mironov's Russian and English editions of The Social History of Imperial Russia, 1700-1917 (2000) offers the comments of four scholars on different aspects of Mironov's work. David L. Ransel introduces the forum with a consideration of whether Russian and western historical scholarship has been or should be converging, and he reviews the Russian-language response to Mironov's book. William G. Wagner discusses Mironov's key conclusions: that the imperial period was marked by the development of a more individualistic personality, the democratic nuclear family, civil society, and a state order based on the rule of law. He questions, however, the validity of the modernization paradigm as an adequate tool for analyzing these developments. Willard Sunderland comments on the use of the concept of empire in Mironov's book, calling attention to the assertion that imperial Russia was a “normal” European state and that it was not a “true colonial state.” The focus of the book, he argues, remains Russian society within the space of the empire, not the society of the empire as a whole. Steven L. Hoch considers Mironov's chapter on demographic processes, criticizing the use of demographic theory and its application to problems such as fertility and mortality. He also argues that Mironov accepts too uncritically the utility of the statistical data at hand. Boris Mironov responds to Wagnar, Sunderland, and Hoch in turn.

The Illusion of Standardizing the Gods: The Cult of the Five Emperors in Late Imperial China

1997 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Szonyi
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Ritual Practice ◽  
Public Morality ◽  
Epidemic Disease ◽  
Late Imperial China ◽  
Late Imperial ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
Imperial China ◽  
Insight Into

Nineteenth-century observers of the Fuzhou area, both Chinese and Western, were struck by the worship of a group of deities associated with pestilence and epidemic disease. The local people called these gods the Five Emperors (Wudi). To Justus Doolittle, an American missionary stationed in Fuzhou, Proclaimed Zuo Zongtang, Governor-General of Fujian and Zhejiang: “the rival societies for getting up processions to parade the idols have from the beginning violated the law and corrupted morals, hence the evil must be stopped without delay” (Zuo 1867, 22). While these two observers each brought his own concern to bear on his perceptions of popular belief and ritual practice, they were united in their focus on the dangers the worship of these deities posed to public morality and order; neither was much interested in the identities or histories of these gods. But a detailed investigation of their identities and histories may explain how the deities were perceived as dangerous to public morality and order, and offers rich insight into the social history of Late Imperial China.

scholarly journals THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITIES OF THE TOBOLSK PROVINCE IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE XVIII – EARLY XX CENTURIES (HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE PROBLEM)

2018 ◽  
pp. 68-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. S. Tomilov
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Urban Space ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Urban Life ◽  
Late Imperial ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Revolutionary Period

The study reviews scientific literature concerning the cities of the Tobolsk province in the late XVIII – early XX centuries. The article  features the works of scientists, published in the pre-revolutionary  period and affecting different sides of the subject in question. The  results of the research indicate that before 1917 the scientific works  were mainly concentrated on such aspects of urban life as  demography, trade, administration, urban space, education, local  government, and periodicals. The authors did not distinguish the  concept of «social life» as a separate phenomenon, limiting the  study of its individual components. The methodology includes the  use of techniques and tools of local, systemic, comparative- historical, and problem-chronological methods, as well as  developments «history of everyday life» and «new Imperial history». In general, the article emphasizes the expansion of scientific  knowledge about the social history of Siberian cities in the post- reform and late Imperial periods, reveals the influence of the  researchers ' views on the integration of urban life. The scope of the  study is not limited to the interest of historians, urbanists and local  historians to the subject of study. Historiographical analysis is  relevant from the point of view of modern discussions about the  prospects of urban studies, and can also be used in the preparation  of textbooks and summaries on Siberian history. 

B. N. Mironov and His “Demographic Processes and Problems”

Slavic Review ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 584-590
Author(s):  
Steven L. Hoch
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Nuclear Family ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Colonial State ◽  
Imperial Russia ◽  
Imperial Period ◽  
The Social ◽  
Demographic Processes ◽  
History Of

A forum on Boris Mironov's Russian and English editions of The Social History of Imperial Russia, 1700-1917 (2000) offers the comments of four scholars on different aspects of Mironov's work. David L. Ransel introduces the forum with a consideration of whether Russian and western historical scholarship has been or should be converging, and he reviews the Russian-language response to Mironov's book. William G. Wagner discusses Mironov's key conclusions: that the imperial period was marked by the development of a more individualistic personality, the democratic nuclear family, civil society, and a state order based on the rule of law. He questions, however, the validity of the modernization paradigm as an adequate tool for analyzing these developments. Willard Sunderland comments on the use of the concept of empire in Mironov's book, calling attention to the assertion that imperial Russia was a “normal” European state and that it was not a “true colonial state.” The focus of the book, he argues, remains Russian society within the space of the empire, not the society of the empire as a whole. Steven L. Hoch considers Mironov's chapter on demographic processes, criticizing the use of demographic theory and its application to problems such as fertility and mortality. He also argues that Mironov accepts too uncritically the utility of the statistical data at hand. Boris Mironov responds to Wagnar, Sunderland, and Hoch in turn.

Response to William G. Wagner's “Law and the State in Boris Mironov's Sotsial´naia istoriia Rossii”

Slavic Review ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 566-570
Author(s):  
Boris N. Mironov
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Nuclear Family ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Colonial State ◽  
Imperial Russia ◽  
Imperial Period ◽  
The Social ◽  
Demographic Processes ◽  
History Of

A forum on Boris Mironov's Russian and English editions of The Social History of Imperial Russia, 1700-1917 (2000) offers the comments of four scholars on different aspects of Mironov's work. David L. Ransel introduces the forum with a consideration of whether Russian and western historical scholarship has been or should be converging, and he reviews the Russian-language response to Mironov's book. William G. Wagner discusses Mironov's key conclusions: that the imperial period was marked by the development of a more individualistic personality, the democratic nuclear family, civil society, and a state order based on the rule of law. He questions, however, the validity of the modernization paradigm as an adequate tool for analyzing these developments. Willard Sunderland comments on the use of the concept of empire in Mironov's book, calling attention to the assertion that imperial Russia was a “normal” European state and that it was not a “true colonial state.” The focus of the book, he argues, remains Russian society within the space of the empire, not the society of the empire as a whole. Steven L. Hoch considers Mironov's chapter on demographic processes, criticizing the use of demographic theory and its application to problems such as fertility and mortality. He also argues that Mironov accepts too uncritically the utility of the statistical data at hand. Boris Mironov responds to Wagnar, Sunderland, and Hoch in turn.

Response to Willard Sunderland's “Empire in Boris Mironov's Sotsial´naia istoriia Rossii”

Slavic Review ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-583
Author(s):  
Boris N. Mironov
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Nuclear Family ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Colonial State ◽  
Imperial Russia ◽  
Imperial Period ◽  
The Social ◽  
Demographic Processes ◽  
History Of

A forum on Boris Mironov's Russian and English editions of The Social History of Imperial Russia, 1700-1917 (2000) offers the comments of four scholars on different aspects of Mironov's work. David L. Ransel introduces the forum with a consideration of whether Russian and western historical scholarship has been or should be converging, and he reviews the Russian-language response to Mironov's book. William G. Wagner discusses Mironov's key conclusions: that the imperial period was marked by the development of a more individualistic personality, the democratic nuclear family, civil society, and a state order based on the rule of law. He questions, however, the validity of the modernization paradigm as an adequate tool for analyzing these developments. Willard Sunderland comments on the use of the concept of empire in Mironov's book, calling attention to the assertion that imperial Russia was a “normal” European state and that it was not a “true colonial state.” The focus of the book, he argues, remains Russian society within the space of the empire, not the society of the empire as a whole. Steven L. Hoch considers Mironov's chapter on demographic processes, criticizing the use of demographic theory and its application to problems such as fertility and mortality. He also argues that Mironov accepts too uncritically the utility of the statistical data at hand. Boris Mironov responds to Wagnar, Sunderland, and Hoch in turn.

A Single Research Community: Not Yet

Slavic Review ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 550-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Ransel
Keyword(s):  
Social History ◽  
Nuclear Family ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Colonial State ◽  
Imperial Russia ◽  
Imperial Period ◽  
The Social ◽  
Demographic Processes ◽  
History Of

A forum on Boris Mironov's Russian and English editions of The Social History of Imperial Russia, 1700-1917 (2000) offers the comments of four scholars on different aspects of Mironov's work. David L. Ransel introduces the forum with a consideration of whether Russian and western historical scholarship has been or should be converging, and he reviews the Russian-language response to Mironov's book. William G. Wagner discusses Mironov's key conclusions: that the imperial period was marked by the development of a more individualistic personality, the democratic nuclear family, civil society, and a state order based on the rule of law. He questions, however, the validity of the modernization paradigm as an adequate tool for analyzing these developments. Willard Sunderland comments on the use of the concept of empire in Mironov's book, calling attention to the assertion that imperial Russia was a “normal” European state and that it was not a “true colonial state.” The focus of the book, he argues, remains Russian society within the space of the empire, not the society of the empire as a whole. Steven L. Hoch considers Mironov's chapter on demographic processes, criticizing the use of demographic theory and its application to problems such as fertility and mortality. He also argues that Mironov accepts too uncritically the utility of the statistical data at hand. Boris Mironov responds to Wagnar, Sunderland, and Hoch in turn.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document