Rulers and Ruled, 1700-1917‪.‬

The assignment to write a historiographical article on "Rulers and Ruled" in Russia led me to reflect on a vital aspect of Russian history, arguably one of the most significant paradigms of our view on the Russian past. The lessons of the traditional state school and the judgmental concept of a despotic autocracy have to a large extent been left behind. (1) Yet, while it appears to be pretty clear what lies behind us, it is much less clear where we are headed. This is, to be sure, not a bad thing, although it can be vexing. Fifteen years ago, the title suggested by the editors for this essay might have been "State and Society," or "Autocracy and the People," or perhaps even "Autocracy versus Society." Such a title would have implied that the Russian past was genuinely problematic and pointed to the same old question: "What went wrong with Russia?" By contrast, "Rulers and Ruled" opens up a wide range of intriguing new questions. Does this conceptual pair imply a dichotomy or rather an integrated entity; does it suggest tension or harmony, separateness or interaction? Who exactly are rulers, and who belongs among the ruled? What existing paradigms in the field can help us grasp this pair? The answers to these questions depend strongly on the object of our focus. In political terms, historians often translate the words "rulers and ruled" into "emperor and elite." In this binary opposition between emperor and elite, the latter often appear to play the progressive role, struggling for more individual rights and less autocratic arbitrariness. For instance, noble interest in property rights in the 18th and 19th centuries is generally understood in a liberal context. (2) Yet the seemingly progressive nobility quickly adopts the role of the oppressor when the historian's perspective shifts. If we examine the relationship between nobles and the enserfed peasantry, the nobility's enhanced property rights stand for increased administrative and personal power over humans. "This essay is not going to deal with the history of serfdom or serf owners. But the ambiguous position of the Russian nobility as subjects and masters demonstrates the fluidity of power-based relationships. "Rulers and ruled" is a relative concept. Arguably, this is one of its advantages: it promises a more flexible approach than the traditional dualism of "autocracy and society."