Counter-Archives: Peasant Autobiographical Writing form Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union

暴力、天真、沉默——1861年农奴制废除后，这种对俄国农民的传统描述就不再准确了。农民成了社会变迁的象征。在自传和日记中，农民讲述了他们作为奴隶、自学成才和宗教梦想家的生活，赢得了大批读者的支持。据说是“真正的”农民，但也是社会的另一种模式。特别是反专制的宣传家，开始把农民作为自传体文本的作者和思考和行动的个体。对他们来说，这些文本代表了反档案，他们希望通过这些档案来表达自己对俄罗斯帝国的看法。在废除农奴制之前，收集和出版农民的人生历程是不可能的；然而，现在，它们成为讨论政治和社会秩序以及社会不平等问题的一种流行方式。在300篇自传体文章的基础上，我展示了从他们预先确定的角色中解放出来如何塑造了农民的自我表现，他们在写自己的时候能够利用比以前更大的可能性。我的研究包括四个部分。第一章侧重于史学和档案实践中对自传体写作的处理。在俄罗斯的历史学界，自传作者并不被认为是关于他们自己生活的权威。更确切地说，历史学家在他们身上看到了一段由于审查制度和封闭档案而无法进入的过去的“见证人”。这种归因于自传体文本的纪念特征不仅塑造了它们的阅读和解释方式，而且决定了它们的存档和传播方式。在本文的第二部分，我的研究重点转向文本的创造。我提出了三个社会空间——新闻和媒体、学者发起的自传体项目和家庭圈——农民男女在其中记录了他们的生活。这项研究的目的是确定这三个领域的界限。作为一个“农民”，不可能在任何地方或以同样的方式写作。为了谈论自己并与文本一起保存，必须呈现某些经历，并且必须使用适当的自我描述形式来建立与代表社会秩序特定概念的集体身份的联系。我认为我的研究的主要贡献在于能够证明社会秩序的概念在1861年之后在俄罗斯帝国变得更加不稳定。边缘群体也对这些变化做出了反应，试图通过撰写和收集农民自传体作品来寻找新的社会地位。在20世纪30年代，社会秩序的概念再次固化。特别是在公共领域，批评社会的作品不再有受众。集体化扼杀了农民的自主权，剥夺了农民叙述自己生活的机会。

Violent, naive, and silent - after serfdom was abolished in 1861 this traditional characterization ofthe Russian peasant was no longer accurate. The peasant became the symbol of a society in flux.In autobiographies and diaries peasants told of their lives as slaves, autodidacts and religiousvisionaries and won over a readership.thatJoundin.theseJextsnot.onlv-the.supposedly-^»authentic« peasants, but also alternative models of society. Anti-autocratic publicists, in particular,began to turn to peasants as writers of autobiographical texts and as thinking and actingindividuals. For them these texts represented counter-archives with which they hoped to asserttheir views about the Russian empire. Before the abolition of serfdom, collecting and publishing thestories of peasants' life journeys had been impossible; now, however, they became a popularmeans of debating notions about the political and social order and questions of social inequality.On the basis of 300 autobiographical texts, 1 show how being released from their pre-determinedroles shaped the self-presentation of the peasants, who were able to draw upon a larger spectrumof possibilities than previously available when writing about themselves.My study consists of four parts. The first chapter focuses on historiographical and archivalpractices regarding the treatment of autobiographical writing. In Russian historical scholarshipautobiographers weren't thought of primarily as authorities about their own lives. Rather, historianssaw in them »witnesses« of a past made inaccessible by censorship and closed archives. Thistestimonial character which was attributed to the autobiographical texts not only shaped how theywere read and interpreted, but also determined how they were archived and transmitted. In thesecond part of my study the emphasis turns to the creation ofthe texts. 1 present three socialspaces - the press and the media, autobiographical projects initiated by scholars, and the familycircle - in which peasant men and women recorded their lives. The goal of the study was todetermine the boundaries of these three realms. It was not possible to write as a »peasant«everywhere or in the same manner. In order to talk about oneself and to be preserved along withone's text, certain experiences had to be presented and the appropriate forms of self-descriptionhad to be used to establish a connection with collective identities which represented a specificnotion of social order.I see the primary contribution of my study as being able to show that the notions of social orderwhich could be conceived of and spoken about became more fluid in the Russian Empire after1861. Marginalized groups also reacted to these changes, attempting to find a new position in thesocial sphere by writing and collecting peasant autobiographical writing. In the 1930s notions ofsocial order solidified once again. Particularly in the public sphere there was no longer anyaudience for writing that was critical of society. Collectivization stifled peasant autonomy, and withit the opportunity to narrate one's own life.