The Imperial Turn (From the Editors) (Editorial‪)‬

Since roughly 1991, the Russian field has undergone numerous changes. In fact, one should now say the Russian and Eurasian field, for among the most striking developments has been the explosive growth of studies on what might be called the imperial dimensions to Russian and Soviet history. (1) Much as Social Democrats in Russia at the turn of the 20th century used to put the "nationality question" last on the agenda at party meetings, so Russian and Soviet historians often marginalized--or did not consider at all--a range of issues relating to non-Russian nationalities, ethnicity and nationalism, borderlands and non-Russian groups, national identities and representations of empire. (2) To be sure, fundamental studies appeared, but it is safe to say that this set of issues gravitated toward the margins rather than remaining at the center of the field's attention. The imperial turn in the historiography occurred not just because the Soviet Union broke up into 15 newly independent states in 1991, but because that particular owl of Minerva came on the heels of a quantum leap in the general theory of nationalism and ethnicity in the human sciences. (3) For many years now, study of Russia as a polyethnic state has been one of the fastest-growing and fastest-moving fields of scholarship in the Eurasian area. How has this changed the field? Let us first refine the question. The imperial boom has persisted for over a decade; already, attempts to take stock are being pursued and a range of collected works have been published. (4) Kritika has also been a participant in this process--the third volume of Kritika Historical Studies, released by Slavica Publishers in November 2006, is entitled Orientalism and Empire in Russia. Aimed especially at classroom use and with scholars in other fields in mind, it brings together work in this area published in the first seven volumes of Kritika and some previously unpublished works on Russian Oriental Studies. Preparing this volume has prompted us to look back at what the journal has published in this area since its founding and to think more broadly about the contours of the new literature. The question we would like to pose here, though, is not primarily internal to the new historiography of empire. Rather, it concerns how this scholarly trend has affected--or, better to say, could affect--grand narratives of Russian history.