Pushkareva N. l. gender theory and historical knowledge. The gender system of Soviet Russia and the fate of Russian women

The emergence and formation of the Russian diaspora abroad

The Russian state has long been involved in the history of world migrations. The history of immigration to Russia from other countries and internal movements of peoples within the borders of the Russian state attracted the attention of researchers back in the 19th century. And at the same time, the formation of the Russian diaspora abroad remained a surprisingly little-studied topic.

Until the end of the 19th century. data on emigration from the Russian Empire practically did not appear in publications, since this information was considered secret even then, and the tsarist government preferred to pretend that emigration did not exist. In the 20th century in a number of works published before the outbreak of the First World War, the tasks of studying the problem were first set, and some statistical data concerning the end of the 19th century were collected. (from the beginning of the 80s) and until 1914. After the revolution of 1917, a number of works appeared on the history of political emigration in Russia in the 1920s. But these were not so much historical studies as responses of historians and publicists to the ideological demands of that time. At the same time, the first attempts were made to periodize the history of Russian emigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries, coinciding with Lenin’s periodization of the history of the liberation movement in Russia. This simplified the analysis of the complex process of emigration, if only because emigration from Russia was not only political, and political emigration was far from being reduced to the three stages of the liberation movement; its waves and flows were much greater.

At the end of the 1920s. The first works appeared talking about emigration from Russia after October 1917. Returnees of the 1920s also took up this topic, striving not so much to give a general research overview of the number, sentiments, and living conditions of Russians abroad, but to present their own versions and memories about recent events.

However, since the 1930s. all topics related to emigration actually fell into the category of prohibited, and the sources, including memoirs, ended up in special storage facilities of libraries and archives. Therefore, until the memorable thaw of the 1960s. In the USSR, not a single significant research work was published on the emigrant topic.

At the very end of the 1950s and early 1960s. Some former emigrants returned to the USSR and soon published their memories. Those researchers who studied the struggle of parties and classes at the beginning of the 20th century became interested in the history of white emigration. However, both the works of Soviet scientists of that time and the publications of foreign authors examined mainly its post-October wave. At the same time, both works were politicized.

The first significant step in studying the topic was in the 70s. works by L.K. Shkarenkov and A.L. Afanasyev. They collected significant specific material on the history of white and anti-Soviet emigration, despite the obstacles to its identification and generalization put in place at that time. During the years of stagnation, the emigrant topic could only be dealt with by exposing bourgeois ideology and condemning those who left. At the same time, a number of interesting monographs, rich in concrete material, appeared abroad on the history of Russian emigrant literature and cultural life in general. As Soviet literary criticism, art criticism, and scientific studies tried to forget and cross out many of the names of former compatriots in art, science, and culture, foreign authors set themselves the task of doing everything possible to preserve these names. Long before works on the history of dissent in the USSR appeared in Soviet historical literature, books on this topic had already been published in foreign historiography.

With the beginning of the democratization of our society in the mid-1980s. interest in Russians abroad, which had always existed latently in the country, spilled out in the form of many articles on the pages of newspapers, magazines, and popular books. In them, journalists made their first attempts to rethink old ideas about emigration, and historians touched on some specific pages of its past. Abroad, researchers of Russian culture in exile received a new impetus to expand and deepen the problematics of their work. The purpose of this essay is to trace, on the basis of literature and published sources, the main stages of the emergence and formation of the Russian diaspora abroad, from the origins of this process to the present, to identify (over a wider chronological period than was done previously) the connection between emigration from Russia and internal processes taking place in the country, both political and socio-economic. We would like to present the scale of Russian emigration in the past and present, to reveal what is new that it contributed to the global process of migration of peoples in different periods of history and what new and recent times have contributed to the problem of emigration of the Russian population to other countries. In an effort to generalize the results of research analysis of Russian and foreign scientists interested in the problems of Russian emigration, it must be said that a significant part of specific factual materials on the history of Russian emigration over the past half century is taken from the press and secondary sources, including quantitative data from statistical institutions of the Russian Federation.

The history of the resettlement of our compatriots, as a result of which the Russian diaspora formed abroad, goes back several centuries, if we take into account the forced flights abroad of political figures back in the Middle Ages and early modern times. In the Peter the Great era, religious motives were added to the political motives for going abroad. The process of economic migration, so characteristic of the countries of Central and Western Europe and caused by surplus labor resources and scarcity of land, practically did not affect Russia until the second half of the 19th century. True, from the XVI-XVIII centuries. We have received information about Russian settlers to distant lands, including America, China, Africa, but such migrations, being very small in number, were often caused not only by economic reasons: some felt the call of distant seas, others fled from misfortune, looking for in a foreign land of peace or success.

Russian emigration became truly massive only in the 19th century, so we can talk about the process of formation of the Russian diaspora no earlier than the second quarter of the last century, when anti-tsarist political emigration from Russia became an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of world migrations of peoples and ethnic groups, and not so much because multiplicity, how many because of the scale and historical role. Its history in Soviet historiography was considered in connection with the stages of the liberation movement. Indeed, the ups and downs of the departure of political emigrants from Russia were in direct connection with the internal policies of the government and its attitude to revolutionary thoughts, but the periodization of the history of Russian political emigration does not always coincide with Lenin’s stages.

First wave political emigrants from Russia, consisting of only a few dozen Russians who resorted to non-return, was a direct consequence of government repressions caused by the speech on Senate Square in 1825. The main center of Russian emigration at that time was Paris. After the revolution of 1848, he moved to London, where, as is known, the first Free Russian printing house was founded. Thanks to her, Russian emigration became connected with the political life of Russia itself and became one of its significant factors. Features of noble emigration from Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century. there was a relatively high standard of living for Russians who went abroad (for example, A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev managed to sell off their real estate in Russia and transfer their fortunes to France, and other nobles were provided with capital). Many political emigrants of the first wave left at one time quite legally.

Political emigrants are a different matter. second wave, which arose not so much after the abolition of serfdom, but after the Polish uprising of 1863-1864. This so-called young emigration consisted of those who fled from Russia, were already wanted by the police, who were fleeing prison, who left their place of exile without permission, etc. Those who left in the first quarter of the 19th century. They did not count on returning and tried to ensure their life abroad in advance. The emigration of the second stream was much more fluid: those who left often returned back. Therefore, neither the democrats of the sixties nor the populists who replaced them had time to create an established way of life abroad. Often their travel documents were not even fully completed. Russian officials are known to have limited the stay of Russians abroad to a period of five years. after the expiration of this period, it was necessary to ask the governor (and for nobles, an official in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to extend the validity of the passport (which cost more than 15 rubles). The absence of the appropriate paper could lead to deprivation of Russian citizenship, and his property in this case would pass into trusteeship. The state tax levied on those leaving officially exceeded 25 rubles. It is clear that under such orders, only wealthy people could travel abroad in the usual way and live there.

Expansion of the social composition of emigration in the 1860s and early 80s. affected only its political part: the burghers, commoners, and intelligentsia were added to the nobles. It was then, in the third quarter of the 19th century, that professional revolutionaries appeared in this environment, going abroad several times and returning to Russia again. Abroad, they tried to find contact with Russian youth studying there, with figures of Russian culture who lived for a long time in Europe (I. S. Turgenev, S. A. Kovalevskaya, V. D. Polenov, etc.) A new large a region of settlement of political refugees, which enjoyed the reputation of a second Russia. This was facilitated by the movement of Herzen’s Free Russian Printing House from London to Geneva. Russian political refugees of that time no longer lived from personal capital, but from literary work, lessons in families, etc.

Third wave Russian political emigration, which arose after the second revolutionary situation and the internal political crisis of the early 80s, spanned almost a quarter of a century. At first, the decline of the revolutionary movement in the country made the Russian political emigration stronger, more closed, and more cut off from Russian realities. Provocateurs appeared among it, and a system of political investigation abroad was formed (chapter Harting-Langdesen). However, a decade later, the isolation of Russian political emigrants from their homeland was overcome: Marxist emigrants created their own Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad. And although V.I. Lenin considered this union opportunistic, calling for the creation of a real revolutionary organization in opposition to it, it is worth considering that the First Congress of the RSDLP recognized the Union as the official representative of the Social Democratic Party abroad. The left wing of Russian political emigration (Bolshevism) took a leading place in it in the first years of the 20th century. Publishing houses, printing houses, libraries, warehouses, the party's cash desk were all located abroad.

The activities of political emigrants of a different ideological orientation have been less thoroughly studied by Soviet historians, although there were also many of them. It is known, for example, that some active figures in the Russian political emigration of this wave were attracted to Masonic lodges. In the spring of 1905, dozens of representatives of the Russian intelligentsia, both temporarily living abroad and emigrants with experience, joined them, forcing the Tsarist secret police to think about introducing their informants into these associations.

The social composition of political emigration from Russia of the third stream changed greatly, especially after the revolution of 1905-1907: workers, peasants, and soldiers appeared in emigration. 700 sailors fled to Romania from the battleship Potemkin alone. They got jobs in industrial enterprises. The intelligentsia earned their living by working for hire as draftsmen (one of the emigrants even worked as a torchbearer during funeral processions). Finding a job was considered good luck. The high cost of living abroad forced people to frequently change their place of residence and move in search of acceptable conditions. That is why accounting for the number of Russians who are abroad for political reasons is so difficult, and conclusions about the significance of certain centers or regions where they are located are vague. If in the early 80s. XIX century While there were about 500 people in forced exile abroad, over a quarter of a century, due to the expansion of the social composition of the political emigration, this number at least tripled.

In addition, the third wave of political emigration from Russia coincided with the first noticeable flow of labor (economic) migration outside its borders. They were based not so much on relative overpopulation as on differences in wages for the same types of labor in Russia and abroad. Despite its sparse population, exceptional natural resources, and vast areas of undeveloped land, Russia was a country of growing emigration. Wanting to preserve its reputation, the tsarist government did not publish data about it. All calculations by economists of that time were based on foreign statistics, primarily German, which for a long time did not record the nationality and religious affiliation of those who left. Until the beginning of the 80s. XIX century The number of people who left Russia for economic reasons did not exceed 10 thousand people, but during this period the number began to grow. This growth continued until the Russian-German trade treaty of 1894, which made border crossing easier with short-term permits that replaced the population with passports and allowed the population to leave briefly and quickly return.

More than half of those who left Russia for economic reasons at the end of the 19th century. settled in the USA. During the period from 1820 to 1900, 424 thousand subjects of the Russian Empire arrived and remained here. What part of these subjects were actually Russian is an unresolved question, since there is no representative data. In Russian historiography of the early 20th century. The prevailing opinion was that only political and foreigners emigrated at that time, and the indigenous population did not go abroad. Indeed, the departure of several thousand Russians themselves (which accounted for 2% of those who left) is hardly comparable to the exodus of Jews (38% of those who left), Poles (29%), Finns (13%), Balts (10%) and Germans (7%).

Russian emigrants departed through Finnish, Russian, and German ports, where records of those leaving were kept. Based on German statistics, it is known that for 1890-1900. Only 1,200 Orthodox Christians left. Men of working age predominated. Women made up only 15%, children (under 14 years old) 9.7%, and by occupation, artisans made up the majority. There were no legal provisions regulating emigration flows in Russia. emigration was, in fact, illegal and illegal. At that time, some representatives of Orthodox religious sects encountered great difficulties when they wished to leave Russia legally and choose another place of residence. Their number was so significant that in historiography there was even an opinion that those who left for religious reasons at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. made up the predominant part of Russian emigrants from Russia. According to V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, from 1826 to 1905, 26.5 thousand Orthodox Christians and sectarians left the Russian Empire, of which 18 thousand left in the last decade of the 19th century. and five pre-revolutionary years (the overwhelming majority of those who left were Great Russians).

Using the example of the history of the emigration of the Doukhobors (about 8 thousand people), one can get an idea of ​​this first flow of religious emigrants from Russia and the reasons for their departure. Conflict with the authorities (refusal of military service) plus utopian hopes that resettlement in a free country would eliminate property inequality and exploitation, served as the impetus for the decision to leave. In August 1896, the leader of the Doukhobors, P. B. Verigin, submitted a petition, but only in May 1898 did the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs agree to the departure of the Doukhobors to Canada. The positive solution to the issue of Doukhobor emigration was to a large extent the result of the active support of the sectarians from L.N. Tolstoy and the Tolstoyans. In the first years of this century, others who were dissatisfied with the lack of freedom of conscience in Russia also left Russia. These were Stundists (more than a thousand) who went to America, spiritual Molokans, the New Israel group (peasants from the South of Russia who belonged to the Subbotnik sect and moved to Palestine).

The Russian events of the autumn of 1905 had a direct impact on emigration. The Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which was a kind of constitution for bourgeois Russia, contributed to the return of many emigrants to their homeland by proclaiming an amnesty for political prisoners. Almost all representatives of the populist democratic parties returned, their bodies ceased to exist. (Of all the Russian Marxists abroad, only G.V. Plekhanov remained). But this situation lasted only for a few months. In the conditions of the decline of the revolution in 1906-1907. An avalanche of arrests swept across the country, causing a new wave of political emigration: first they left for autonomous Finland, and when the Russian police reached these outskirts, they went to Europe. Has begun fourth stage in the history of Russian political emigration. We traveled from Russia to Paris, to Swiss cities, Vienna, London, North and South America, to Australia. In the last of these countries, under the leadership of Artyom (F.A. Sregeev), even a special organization was formed, the Socialist Union of Russian Workers. In total, abroad, according to incomplete data, in the 10s. XX century several tens of thousands of Russian political emigrants lived there.

The number of people leaving for economic reasons also increased, which was facilitated by the agrarian population in the center of the country. Germany and Denmark received most of the agricultural workers from Russia. Only one percent of the peasants sought to obtain foreign citizenship, the rest returned back after some time. Actually, there were still few Russians among the Russian economic emigrants of that time (in 1911-1912, out of 260 thousand who left, 1915; in 1912-1913, out of 260 thousand, 6300). Perhaps the registration authorities are to blame here, as they are not particularly careful in establishing the nationality of migrant workers. Most of the Great Russians who emigrated in those years lived before leaving in the central agricultural provinces, where after the reform of 1861 land plots were especially small and rents were high. Russian peasants went to Europe solely for the sake of earning money, sometimes agreeing to literally bestial living and working conditions.

The largest number of Russians (up to 56% in 1909-1913) left Russia not for European, but for overseas countries. So, for 1900-1913. 92 thousand people settled in the USA and Canada. In contrast to short-term (several years) departures to Europe, overseas emigration consisted of people who decided to change their citizenship and their entire way of life. Emigration to Europe was the emigration of single people. Families went to the USA, and the most enterprising and healthy young people went (medical control was carried out), seduced by the promises of special recruiters. However, among ethnic Russian emigrants there was a high percentage of re-emigrants (a sixth, and in some years, for example, in 1912, a fourth of those who left), which is not comparable with the return of representatives of other nationalities (among Jews and Germans it was practically not observed). And yet, speaking of the fact that Russians joined emigration later than other nations, it should be taken into account that their emigration tended to increase, as did departures from the country as a whole.

What awaited Russians abroad? Laborer's wages (but four times higher than wages for similar work at home), emigrant wanderings, hard, unpleasant, and dangerous work. But workers who decided to leave Russia for economic reasons, as their letters testify, actually accumulated more or less significant savings.

One might think that economic considerations were one of the motives for the emerging wave of people leaving Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. famous cultural figures. Their first stream was formed from pendulum migration: first, musicians N. N. Cherepnin and I. F. Stravinsky, artists A. N. Benois, L. S. Bakst, N. S. Goncharova, M. F. Larionov, choreographers M. M. Fokin, V. F. Nijinsky, ballerinas A. P. Pavlova, T. P. Karsavina and many others only lived abroad for a long time, but returned from tours to their homeland. However, their stay outside Russia became longer and longer, and the contracts they concluded became more and more profitable. The fire of the First World War not only caught many of them outside Russia, but also prevented them from returning. The connection with the homeland weakened more and more. Long-term work abroad and the resulting international fame created for many cultural figures the opportunity to find meaning in life and recognition in the event of a forced need to stay abroad. Many took advantage of this opportunity after October 1917.

The February Revolution of 1917 meant the end of the fourth stage of political emigration. In March 1917, even such old-timers of emigration as G.V. Plekhanov and P.A. Kropotkin returned to Russia. To facilitate repatriation, a Homecoming Committee was formed in Paris, headed by M. N. Pokrovsky, M. Pavlovich (M. L. Veltman), and others. Similar committees arose in Switzerland, England, and the USA. At the same time, the February Revolution marked the beginning of a new stage of Russian political emigration (1917-1985), which after October 1917 acquired the character of anti-Bolshevik, anti-communist, anti-Soviet. Already by the end of 1917, some members of the royal family, representatives of the aristocracy and high officials, who had left during the summer and autumn and performed diplomatic functions abroad, found themselves abroad. However, their departure was not massive. On the contrary, the number of those returning after long years in a foreign land was greater than the number of those leaving.

A different picture began to emerge already in November 1917. The overwhelming majority of those who left for fifth (since 1895) wave Russian political emigration (about 2 million people) consisted of people who did not accept Soviet power and all the events associated with its establishment. These were not only, as was written before, representatives of the exploiting classes, the top of the army, merchants, and high-ranking officials. A precise description of the social composition of the emigration of that time was given by Z. Gippius, who left the Bolshevik country: “... Russia is the same in composition, both at home and abroad: clan nobility, trading people, petty and large bourgeoisie, clergy , the intelligentsia in various fields of its activities, political, cultural, scientific activities, political, cultural, scientific, technical, etc., the army (from the highest to the lowest ranks), the working people (from the machine and from the land) representatives of all classes, estates, situations and conditions, even of all three (or four) generations of Russian emigration, are evident..."

People were driven abroad by the horror of violence and civil war. The western part of Ukraine (January March 1919), Odessa (March 1919), Crimea (November 1920), Siberia and Primorye (late 1920-1921) alternately witnessed crowded evacuations with parts of the White armies. In parallel, the so-called peaceful emigration was going on: bourgeois specialists, having received business trips and exit visas under various pretexts, sought to leave their blood-drunk (A. Vesely) homeland. Information collected in 1922 in Varna (3354 questionnaires) can tell us about the nationality, gender, age, and social composition of those who left. Those leaving were Russians (95.2%), men (73.3%), average age from 17 to 55 years (85.5%), educated (54.2%).

Geographically, emigration from Russia was directed primarily to Western European countries. The first direction is the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, the second is Poland. The settlement in states neighboring Russia was explained by hopes for a quick return to their homeland. However, later these unfulfilled hopes forced those who left to move further to the center of Europe in Germany, Belgium, and France. The third direction is Turkey, and from there to Europe, the Balkans, Czechoslovakia and France. It is known that at least 300 thousand Russian emigrants passed through Constantinople during the Civil War alone. The fourth route of emigration of Russian political refugees is connected with China, where a special area of ​​their settlement quickly appeared. In addition, certain groups of Russians and their families ended up in the USA and Canada, in the countries of Central and South America, in Australia, India, New Zealand, Africa and even in the Hawaiian Islands. Already in the 1920s. one could notice that in the Balkans there were concentrated mainly the military, in Czechoslovakia those who were associated with Komuch (Committee of the Constituent Assembly), in France, in addition to representatives of aristocratic families, the intelligentsia, in the United States, businessmen, enterprising people who wanted to make capital in big business. The transit point there for some was Berlin (where they were waiting for the final visa), for others Constantinople.

The center of political life of the Russian emigration in the 20s. was Paris, its institutions were located here and several tens of thousands of emigrants lived. Other significant centers of Russian dispersion were Berlin, Prague, Belgrade, Sofia, Riga, and Helsingfors. The resumption and gradual decline of the activities of various Russian political parties abroad are well described in the literature. The life and ethnographic characteristics of the considered wave of Russian political emigration have been less studied.

The return to Russia that emerged after the end of the Civil War did not become universal even after the political amnesty declared in 1921, but for several years it was still widespread. Thus, in 1921, 121,343 people who had left returned to Russia, and in total from 1921 to 1931, 181,432 people. The Homecoming Unions (the largest in Sofia) helped a lot with this. The Soviet authorities did not stand on ceremony with the returning repatriates: former officers and military officials were shot immediately after arrival, some non-commissioned officers and soldiers ended up in northern camps. The returnees appealed to possible future returnees not to believe the guarantees of the Bolsheviks, and they also wrote to the Commissioner for Refugees at the League of Nations, F. Nansen. One way or another, Nansen’s organization and the passport project proposed by him and approved by 31 states contributed to the placement and finding a place in the lives of 25 thousand Russians who found themselves in the USA, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and other countries.

The fifth wave of Russian political emigration, for obvious reasons, coincided with a new wave of religious emigration from Russia. Unlike the first stream of those leaving for religious reasons, in the post-October decades it was not sectarians who left the country, but representatives of the Orthodox clergy. These were not only its highest ranks, but also ordinary priests, deacons, synodal and diocesan officials of all ranks, teachers and students of theological seminaries and academies. The total number of clergy among the emigrants was small (0.5%), but even the small number of those who left did not prevent a schism. Created in November 1921 in Sremski Karlovice (Yugoslavia), the Synod and Church Council under the Supreme Russian Church Administration Abroad were not recognized by the head of the Moscow Patriarchate, Tikhon, who transferred control of Western European parishes to his protege. Mutual accusations of heresy did not subside even decades later, but ordinary lay emigrants were always far from these discords. Many of them noted that being Orthodox for them meant feeling Russian. Orthodoxy remained the spiritual support of those who believed in the revival of the way of life of the former pre-revolutionary Russian state, in the destruction of communism and godlessness.

Speaking about emigration for political and religious reasons in 1917 and the early 1930s, we must not forget that not a small handful of people left Russia; the whole flower of the country left... October 17th marked the beginning of a huge emigration of scientists and cultural figures, incomparable in scale to the first, at the beginning of the 20th century. Hundreds and thousands of educated, gifted people left Russia and resumed scientific and creative activities outside Russia. From 1921 to 1930 alone, they held five congresses of academic organizations, where professors and associate professors of former Russian universities set the tone. Over the course of a decade and a half, our compatriots abroad published 7,038 titles of scientifically significant research works. Neither theatrical, concert, nor literary life stopped in emigration. On the contrary, the achievements of Russian emigrants, writers and artists, entered the golden fund of Russian literature and art, without experiencing the disastrous consequences of ideological deformation. The largest of the publishing houses that published Russian literature abroad in the post-October years was the publishing house of Z. I. Grzhebin. In total, for the 30s. Outside Russia, 1,005 titles of newspapers and magazines were published, in which emigrants of all generations, reflecting on the destinies and future of Russia, published their works.

The military threat that loomed over the world in the second half of the 1930s changed a lot in the mood of the world community, not bypassing the Russian diaspora. Its left wing unequivocally condemned Hitler and fascism. There are moments, P. N. Milyukov wrote then, calling to be on the side of the homeland, when choice becomes mandatory. The other part of the emigration consisted of people with a contradictory position. They pinned their hopes on the courage of the Russian army, which, they thought, was capable of repelling the fascist invasion, and then eliminating Bolshevism. The third group of emigrants were future collaborators. In our historiography there was an opinion that the latter constituted the majority (although no calculations were made!). There is reason to believe that this is nothing more than an ideological installation of past years. The memories of eyewitnesses indicate that those who were directly or indirectly with the enemies of Russia were, fortunately, always in the minority.

By the time the Nazis attacked the USSR, the number of our compatriots in all countries had decreased significantly. Many members of the older generation have died. Approximately 10% of those who left over the past two decades (1917-1939) returned to their homeland. Someone accepted a new citizenship, ceasing to be an emigrant. So, for example, in France, compared to 1920, the number of Russians decreased by 8 times; there were about 50 thousand, in Bulgaria 30 thousand, and the same in Yugoslavia. There are about 1 thousand Russians left in Manchuria and China, although in the mid-20s. there were up to 18 thousand people.

June 22, 1941 finally separated fellow Russians. In all countries occupied by the Nazis, arrests of Russian emigrants began. At the same time, the fascists launched a campaign calling on the enemies of Bolshevism from among the emigrants to join German military units. In the very first months of the war, generals P.N. Krasnov and A.G. Shkuro offered their services to the fascist command. There were people in the occupied Soviet territories who, for ideological reasons, agreed to cooperate with the invaders. Subsequently, they gave rise to a new wave of political emigration. However, the absolute majority of Russians who were abroad remained loyal to the Fatherland and passed the test of patriotism. The massive entry of Russian exiles into the ranks of the Resistance and other anti-fascist organizations, their selfless activities are well known both from memoirs and from other sources. Many of those emigrants who showed themselves to be patriots and anti-fascists were granted the right to receive Soviet citizenship by Decrees of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of November 10, 1945 and January 20, 1946. In Yugoslavia in 1945 there were more than 6 thousand such applicants, in France over 11 thousand. Hundreds of people applied for Soviet citizenship to the consular mission in Shanghai, which resumed its work. At the same time, some emigrants ended up in their native land not of their own free will, but as a result of extradition (i.e., the extradition of certain persons from one state to another as provided for in international treaties). They then served more than one year in Stalin’s prisons and camps, but after their liberation they remained to live in their homeland, refusing foreign passports.

The completion of the defeat of fascism in 1945 meant a new era in the history of Russian emigration. Those who experienced persecution and persecution during the years of the brown plague returned to their homeland. But not all, or even most, of the emigrants of this century returned. Some were already old and afraid to start a new life, others were afraid of not fitting into the Soviet system of life... A division occurred in many families, recalled V.N. Bunina, the writer’s wife. Some wanted to go, others wanted to stay... Those who did not return to the Bolsheviks and stayed made up the so-called old emigration. At the same time, a new emigration arose and these were Russians who left their homeland sixth wave political emigration ( and the second after October 1917.). The new emigration consisted mainly of displaced persons. After the end of World War II, there were about 1.5 million of them. Among them were Soviet citizens, including Russian prisoners of war forcibly taken to Europe, as well as war criminals and collaborators who sought to avoid deserved retribution. All of them relatively easily received preferential rights to immigration visas to the United States: at the embassy of this country there was no check for former loyalty to fascist regimes.

In total, about 150 thousand Russians and Ukrainians were resettled in different countries of the world only with the assistance of the International Organization for Refugees, more than half in the USA and approximately 15-17% in Australia and Canada. At the same time, victims of the Nazi or fascist regimes, collaborators, and those who were persecuted due to their political convictions under Stalinist totalitarianism began to be called refugees. The last US President Truman asked for special help and support on the grounds that among them there were capable and courageous fighters against communism. As the Cold War gained momentum, the governments of many European countries did not prevent the creation of new emigrant organizations opposed to the USSR, as well as the renewal of old ones. They united the so-called young emigration with those representatives of the old who did not dare to leave at the invitation of the USSR government. The process developed in parallel with the continuation of return, with propaganda launched by the Soviet Union to encourage emigrants to return to their homeland. But in general the appearance of the 50s. It is not the desire to return, nor re-emigration, that determines, but the strokes and features of the Cold War. That is why the number of emigrants from the USSR in the 50s. decreased sharply. Some idea of ​​this is given by Canadian statistics, which indicate a tenfold reduction in the number of Russian emigrants settling in this country in one decade (early 50s, early 60s). Unfortunately, as in other countries, emigrants from the USSR were not identified by ethnicity, and until the beginning of 1991, when nationality began to be more accurately recorded in questionnaires, all those who left our country were considered Russians.

What was the reason for the decrease in the number of political emigrants leaving Russia? The post-war problem of displaced persons was somehow solved or had already been solved. The USSR was separated from other European countries and the United States by an Iron Curtain. Construction of the Berlin Wall in the early 60s. meant that the last window to Europe was closing. The only way to get abroad for permanent residence was in the 50s and 60s. there was non-return of members of official delegations and rare tourist groups. However, these were isolated cases.

New and last before perestroika political emigration from Russia arose in the late 60s. together with the movement of dissidents and dissidents. It is believed that it was based on (in order of importance) national, religious and socio-political factors. The first of those listed had no significance for the Russian nation, but the second and third actually influenced the increase in the number of people wishing to leave.

The Western press contains conflicting data on the number of people who left the USSR during the years of stagnation. The most common figure is 170-180 thousand people for 1971-1979. and another 300 thousand people for 1970-1985. However, it should be taken into account that the vast majority of emigrants of that time traveled on Israeli visas (in 1968-1976 alone, 132,500 visas were issued to travel to Israel). Of course, among these people who left were Russians, mainly dissidents, pushed out of the country on Israeli visas, but who were not Jews (for example, E. Limonov), as well as Russian members of Jewish families. However, to determine the number of Russians who left in the total number of emigrants of the 69-70s. there is no possibility yet.

Of the three components of the last wave of political emigration from Russia, non-return, a new (third in history) flow of emigration of cultural figures in search of freedom of creativity and better conditions for it, as well as the forced emigration of Soviet dissidents, the last two often merged. The motives for the departure of prominent figures of Soviet culture were most often economic, sometimes political or creative, and usually both. Less often, people left of their own free will; more often, they were forced to leave the country by the competent authorities. As for purely political dissidents, the identification of which is usually associated with the events of 1968, their social composition was mainly representatives of technical professions, less often students, people with secondary education, and much less often specialists in the field of humanities. A figure in the dissident movement in the USSR, who was then exiled abroad, A. A. Amalrik writes: In 1976 in Amsterdam, my old friend L. Chertkov recalled how ten years ago everyone laughed at my prediction that they would soon begin to deport people not only to Siberia , but also abroad. Expulsion from the country, one of the oldest forms of political reprisal, was impossible during the period of multimillion-dollar repressions that the authorities wanted to hide from the world; but with selective repressions and with public protest within the country, a return to deportation as a repressive measure is understandable; it does not contradict the principle of a closed society, “an expelled person can muddy the waters” abroad, but not in the USSR.

The first expulsions of dissidents date back to 1972: then they were framed as a voluntary desire to leave, since deprivation of citizenship for actions incompatible with the title of Soviet citizen required a special decree of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. A certain milestone in the history of emigration of Soviet dissidents was 1975, the year of signing the Helsinki Act, since then the problem of human rights arose, including the right to emigrate. The US Congress adopted the Jackson-Vanek Amendment, which states that most favored nation status in trade with the US will be granted only to those countries that do not create obstacles for their citizens to leave. This prompted some dissidents in the USSR to form a movement to ensure the right to leave, and allowed the Soviet authorities to present every forced expulsion as a humane act. Later, a third way opened up to send abroad persons who did not agree with the political regime in the USSR (in addition to deprivation of citizenship and voluntary departure): it was the exchange of political prisoners. Of course, in the 70s. the number of people who left and were expelled for political reasons was negligible, but the point was, as A.D. Sakharov noted, not in arithmetic, but in the qualitative fact of breaking through the psychological barrier of silence.

Simultaneously with the last wave of political emigration from Russia (1970s), a new flow of people leaving for religious reasons began to take shape in the USSR. We are talking about Pentecostals, who at that time numbered several hundred thousand people. This religious movement in its current form has existed in Russia since the beginning of the 20th century, but Pentecostals were not registered with the Council for Religious Affairs and Cults, created in 1945. A conflict arose with the authorities, the cause of which was their antisocial activities, which meant the refusal of Pentecostals to register, as well as to perform military service. Constant discrimination in civil and private life contributed to the fact that back in the late 40s. the Pentecostal creed was supplemented by the idea of ​​exodus from the USSR. It was based on the belief that the cup of God’s wrath was about to overtake this godless country, so it was the duty of true Christians to strive for the outcome. The first list of those wishing to leave was compiled in 1965, but only in the spring of 1973 did a consistent movement for departure begin. Community members turned to the authorities, who demanded that they summon their relatives or the governments of the countries where they were going to travel. Since 1974, Pentecostals began to appeal to the President of the United States and to Christians of the world. The year of the Helsinki Conference increased their hopes. Foreign correspondents learned about them, and one of the emigrant periodicals, the Chronicle of Current Events, reported in each issue on the situation of Pentecostals in the USSR. At the same time, the Soviet authorities prevented the processing of documents for departure, citing the lack of calls (meanwhile calls sent from USA, were intercepted and did not reach). In addition, unlike Jews and Germans, Pentecostals could not motivate their request to leave by the desire to live in their historical homeland. In February 1977, more than 1 thousand people declared their desire to leave the USSR for religious reasons. people, about 30 thousand people in 1979. Open persecution began, and from the beginning of the 80s, arrests continued until 1985, when decisive changes came. Only in 1989, for religious reasons, about 10 thousand people, among them many Pentecostals.

The emigration of the 70s and early 80s, which consisted mainly of dissident intelligentsia, has recently been replaced by new, perestroika wave leaving their Russian homeland forever. It can be called the last (third in the history of Russia) wave of economic emigration, since political emigration is currently reduced to nothing, and the emigration of scientists and cultural figures most often comes down to economic emigration. Nevertheless, the motives of those leaving Russia in the last 5-6 years are conventionally divided into production (scientific, creative) and economic (unscientific, jeans and sausage, as the famous film director N. Mikhalkov harshly characterized them). Motives of the first kind are explained by the conflict nature of creative teams, the lack of funds in the homeland for the development of culture, the impossibility of creative self-realization of the individual, etc. Motives of the second kind have always existed. And as soon as the right to emigrate began to be realized in the USSR, those who did not find opportunities in the country to organize a prosperous life flocked abroad. A combination of social ills hastened their departure.

In total, 6,100 people left the USSR during the years of perestroika: in 1985, 39,129, in 1988, 108,189, in 1989, 234,994, and in 1990, 453,600. Most emigrants ended up abroad thanks to Israeli visas and settled in Israel, but not all were Jews (3%, or about 3 thousand people, in 1990 alone). A significant part went to Germany - 32%, and 5.3% to Greece, 2.9% to the USA, the rest remained in other European countries and on other continents. According to the State Statistics Committee, the average age of those leaving today is 30 years, 2/3 of them are men, 34% of those leaving are employees, 31% are workers, 2% are collective farmers, 4% are students, 25% are not employed in production and are pensioners. It is significant that among those who applied to leave in the early 1990s. 99.3% of citizens do not speak any language other than Russian.

The relocation tactics for those leaving Russia for creative reasons vary. Scientists A. Yurevich, D. Aleksandrov, A. Alakhverdyan and others working on the program Social and Psychological Problems of Migration count four types of people leaving. The first is associated with the departure of the elite one percent of famous scientists, who are offered laboratories and institutes after moving. The second type is those leaving with the expectation of help from relatives abroad. Still others are leaving according to the directory, that is, those who, before leaving, look for a place of work themselves while still in their homeland. Finally, the fourth are those who are leaving on the principle that no matter where, it will be even worse here.

It is estimated that of all those who decide to permanently leave Russia, approximately half get a job abroad in their specialty. Most of the people who left were physicists, followed by mathematicians and biologists. Other representatives of the exact sciences, as well as doctors, linguists, musicians, and ballet dancers fit into foreign countries relatively easily. The average income of immigrant families from the former USSR in America, the press reported in April 1991, is higher than the income of the average American. But not only those who are expected there go abroad. For economic reasons, people have come from Russia who simply feel their financial instability.

And as the former USSR opened the floodgates, foreign governments introduced quotas. Already in 1992, it became difficult to obtain refugee status as a victim of communist persecution, an argument that worked flawlessly during the years of stagnation. Many countries began to fear the bloodless invasion of the Russians (as all citizens of the former USSR are still called) and refused to provide permanent residence permits. This is what Denmark, Norway, Italy, and Sweden did. Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Australia, England, and France have sharply reduced their intake.

At the same time, quotas for entry into foreign countries only limit, but do not stop, departure from ours. A number of states even declared their readiness to accept an increasing number of former Soviet citizens every year: Canada increased its quota to 250 thousand, and the United States to 600,700 thousand people per year. Therefore, only in 1991-1992. Our and foreign sociologists predicted up to 2.5 million emigrants from Eastern Europe, and up to 25 million people were called potential emigrants. Up to a quarter of modern children from large cities, according to a sociological survey, are ready to leave in the future (23% versus 63% who chose their homeland). It is likely that the upward trend in emigration will continue in the next 5–10 years.

The number of compatriots currently living abroad (about 20 million people) includes 1.3 million ethnic Russians. Since the beginning of the 90s. the desire to cooperate with them, the readiness to establish contacts and international exchanges became especially noticeable. In turn, Russians themselves living abroad began to increasingly form associations in order to preserve national traditions, maintain the Russian spirit, the Russian direction. Our compatriots have played and continue to play a significant role in collecting humanitarian aid for Russia and in various charitable acts. Russian-language periodicals also play a huge unifying role today.

In August 1991, at the First Congress of Compatriots, held in Moscow, representatives of the Russian government and the Supreme Council emphasized that now there are no differences between the waves of Russian emigration, they are all our compatriots and the division of emigration into progressive neutralist reactionary one loses all meaning. Agreeing with this, N. Mirza, representative of the Supreme Council of Russia in the organizing committee of the Congress, emphasized: Nationality does not matter. The main thing is the preserved Russian language and cultural affiliation.

Pushkareva N. L.

15.06.2002

Pushkareva N.L. The emergence and formation of the Russian diaspora abroad // "Domestic History". - 1996. - 1 - P. 53-65

(1959-09-23 ) (53 years old) Place of Birth: A country:

USSR →
Russia

Scientific field: Alma mater: Scientific adviser:

Natalya Lvovna Pushkareva(born September 23, Moscow) - Russian historian, anthropologist, founder of historical feminology and gender history in Soviet and Russian science, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor, head. sector of ethno-gender studies, President of the Russian Association of Women's History Researchers (RAIZHI).

Biography

Born in Moscow, in the family of famous historians, doctors of historical sciences Lev Nikitovich Pushkarev and Irina Mikhailovna Pushkareva. She graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, graduate school and doctoral studies at the Institute of Ethnography (now). Since 1987 he has been working at this institute, and since 2008 he has been heading the sector of ethnic and gender studies. Corresponding Member calls his main teachers in science. USSR Academy of Sciences V. T. Pashuto, RAS Academician V. L. Yanin, RAO Academician I. S. Kon, Professor Yu. L. Bessmertny.

Scientific and teaching activities

The main result of the research work of N. L. Pushkareva is the creation of a national school of historical feminology and gender history. Her PhD thesis, defended in 1985, laid the foundation for gender studies in Soviet science. She shaped the scientific direction, creating a methodological and organizational basis for the development of feminological and, more broadly, gender studies in the USSR, and then in modern Russia. The research and scientific-organizational activities of N. L. Pushkareva have received wide recognition both among Russian scientists and abroad.
N. L. Pushkareva is the author of more than 400 scientific and over 150 popular science publications, including 9 monographs and a dozen collections of scientific articles, in which she acted as a compiler, responsible. editor, author of forewords. In 1989-2005 She has repeatedly given lectures on the history of Russian women, women's and gender studies at universities in Russia (in Tambov, Ivanovo, Tomsk, Kostroma, etc.), CIS countries (in Kharkov, Minsk), foreign universities (in Germany, France, the USA, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Hungary).
Under the guidance of prof. N. L. Pushkareva wrote and defended several candidate and doctoral dissertations.

Editorial and expert activities

In 1994-1997 - N.L. Pushkareva led the column “History of Private Life” in the historical magazine “Rodina”. Since 1996, he has been the editor of the “Cult of Ancestors” column in the “Motherhood” magazine. Since 2007, N. L. Pushkareva has been the editor-in-chief of the Social History Yearbook.
From 1997 to the present - member of a number of editorial boards and editorial councils (“Gender Studies”, “Bulgarian Ethnology” (Sofia), magazines “Blank Spots of Russian and World History”, “Modern Science: Current Problems of Theory and Practice” ( series "Humanities"), "Historical Psychology and Social History", "Glasnik SANU" (Belgrade), "Adam and Eve. Almanac of Gender History", "Dictionary of the Russian Language of the XI-XVII centuries", "Aspasia. Yearbook of gender history”, book series “Gender Studies”, etc.), Interuniversity Scientific Council “Feminology and Gender Studies”. Since 2010 - Bulletin of Tver State University, Bulletin of Perm State University, since 2012 - journal “Historical Psychology and Social History” (Moscow).
In 1996-1999 - Member of the Scientific Council of the Moscow Center for Gender Research, 1997-2006. - Director of educational and scientific programs, co-organizer of the Russian Summer Schools on Women's and Gender Studies. Member of the expert councils of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Foundation (Soros Foundation), the Canadian Foundation for Gender Equality, expert-evaluator of the VI EU Program 2002-2006, head of the Expert Group of the “Council for the Consolidation of the Women’s Movement in Russia.”

Social activity

N.L. Pushkareva is one of the leaders of the feminist movement in Russia and the CIS countries. Since 2002, she has been president of the Russian Association of Women's History Researchers (RAIZHI, www.rarwh.ru). Since 2010, member of the Executive Committee of the International Federation of Women's History Researchers (IFIZHI) and Head of the Russian National Committee of IFIZHI.

Family

• Father - Doctor of History, Senior Researcher Institute of Russian History RAS L. N. Pushkarev.
• Mother - Doctor of History, Senior Researcher Institute of Russian History RAS I. M. Pushkarev.
• Son - Ph.D. A. M. Pushkarev.

Bibliography

Dissertations

• PhD thesis:“The position of women in the family and society of Ancient Rus' in the 10th-13th centuries”; defended in 1985 at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University;
• Doctoral dissertation:“A woman in a Russian family of the 10th - early 19th centuries. Dynamics of socio-cultural changes"; defended in 1997 at the Academic Council of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Monographs

• Pushkareva N.L. Women of Ancient Rus'. - M.: “Thought”, 1989.
• Pushkareva N.L., Alexandrov V.A., Vlasova I.V. Russians: ethnoterritory, settlement, numbers, historical destinies (XII-XX centuries). - M.: IEA RAS, 1995; 2nd ed. - M.: IEA RAS, 1998.
• Pushkareva N.L. Women of Russia and Europe on the threshold of the New Age. - M.: IEA RAS, 1996.
• Women in Russian History from the Tenth to the Twentieth Century. New York: M.E. Sharp, 1997 (Heldt-Prise, “Book of the Year - 1997”).
• Pushkareva N.L. Ethnography of the Eastern Slavs in foreign studies (1945-1990). - St. Petersburg: “BLITZ”, 1997.
• Pushkareva N.L. The private life of a woman in pre-industrial Russia. X - beginning of the XIX century. Bride, wife, lover. - M.: “Ladomir”, 1997.
• Pushkareva N.L.“And these are evil, mortal sins...” Vol. 1. Sexual culture in pre-Petrine Russia. - M.: “Ladomir”, 1999; issue 2. (in 3 volumes) Russian sexual and erotic culture in studies of the 19th-20th centuries. M.: “Ladomir”, 2004.
• Pushkareva N.L. Russian woman: history and modernity. - M.: “Ladomir”, 2002.
• Pushkareva N.L. Gender theory and historical knowledge. - St. Petersburg: “Aletheia”, 2007.
• Pushkareva N.L. The private life of a woman in Ancient Rus' and Muscovy. - M.: “Lomonosov”, 2011.
• Pushkareva N.L. The private life of a Russian woman in the 18th century. - M.: “Lomonosov”, 2012.

A complete list of scientific and popular science publications is on the personal website.

Links

Interview

• Vesta Borovikova Natalya Pushkareva: I’ll give myself a coat! // “Evening Moscow”, March 6, 2002 No. 42 (23358) P. 4

Keywords: gender system, USSR, woman's fate

N. L. Pushkareva

GENDER SYSTEM OF SOVIET RUSSIA

AND THE FATES OF RUSSIAN WOMEN

The position of women in Soviet Russia (1917-1991) was determined by a unique gender order - a system of social interactions between the sexes, organized according to formal and informal rules. This order was formed and imposed by the state, and therefore can be called étacratic (from the French.etat- state) . It was the Soviet state that for more than seventy years was an institution that carried out gender regulation through coercive policies and acted as the dominant (hegemonic) agent of control of gender relations in a society of the Soviet and, as I believe, post-Soviet type.

The creation of a “new woman” and a “new man”, new relations between the sexes began in the very first days of Soviet power and subsequently occurred within the framework of the policy of involving women in social production and political life, state regulation of the family, the formation and changes in official discourses interpreting femininity and masculinity. Modern Russian and foreign sociologists of everyday life, studying the transformation of gender relations, distinguish four periods in the history of women in Soviet Russia and the history of changes in the gender structure. They cover seven Soviet and at least two post-Soviet decades (that is, 1917-1991 and 1991-2007).

1st stage- from the end of 1917 to the end of the 1920s. and the collapse of NEP - the period of women's councils and Bolshevik experimentation in the field of sexuality and family and marriage relations. Within the framework of this “Bolshevik” period, the women’s issue was resolved through “dispersal” (defamilization) and the political mobilization of women.

Carrying out their unique social experiment, the Bolsheviks, who came to power in the fall of 1917, meant by “solving the women's issue”, first of all, the speedy “communist education” of women, attracting them into the party ranks with their further promotion to government positions. Using later (already Stalinist rhetoric), it was necessary to “increase the activity of women in the struggle of the working class for socialism, to put this force into action.” However, the bulk of women in Russia at that time were not only politically passive, but also simply illiterate. Many women were simply “members of workers’ families,” that is, they were not incorporated into labor collectives, and therefore did not succumb to calls to join the Bolshevik Party, to follow its slogans (for example, to send their children to the created kindergartens, which were considered “sprouts of the true communism" in order to go to work themselves). Among the women of the twenties there were many deserters from the labor front. Women were considered a backward element simply because they were the stronghold of the traditional family and private life. Sister of the leader of the revolution, A.I. Elizarova, argued that “the entire struggle of the working class, even in St. Petersburg - the most cultural working center, with the most developed workers, was greatly weakened and paralyzed by the female element, both female workers and, especially, workers’ wives”; she was echoed by A.M. Kollontai, who even called female workers “a large politically backward group that needs to be mobilized urgently”<...>In order to defend her not yet won rights in life, a woman has to do much more educational work on herself than a man.”

For the “political education” of women, already at the height of the Civil War in October 1919, “women’s departments” were created at all party organizations, and a special state apparatus was formed to work among women - “women’s councils”. The first head of the Department for Work Among Women was I.F. Armand (autumn 1919), after her untimely death - A.M. Kollontai, and then A.N. Samoilova. “Strengthen local women’s departments with workers! - insisted the ideologists of that time. - Conduct work energetically through agitation, and where this does not help - by party reprimand against those party members and candidates who have not yet outlived the old views. When recruiting children to schools, strive to attract as many girls as possible.” To a certain extent, organizations such as women's councils taught women the ability to act in the public sphere. Women's departments and women's councils were based on the principles of delegation of women from certain social groups (peasant women, workers) and structures (plants, factories, etc.). Those who worked in women's councils were called “delegates” and were called upon to protect the interests of women. The main goal of the women's departments was the same ideological processing of human material, the introduction of communist ideas into the consciousness of the majority of women, and not the protection of women's own interests in the modern sense.

Behind this desire - to advance women ideologically - there was no malicious intent of the Bolsheviks. Then it was believed that disagreement with communist ideas could only arise from the “darkness” of consciousness, a lack of understanding of “one’s own happiness.” At the same time, the creation of any societies fraught with the danger of distracting working women and peasant women from party goals was strictly condemned. Women had to be “politically mobilized” in the right direction, to become Soviet citizens who shared ideological principles, using the ironic words of Andrei Platonov, to be “thin and exhausted, so as not to distract people from mutual communism.”

IN legal region, the Soviet state was forced in any way to combine the old patriarchal attitudes (to ensure consideration and control of the “human factor” of the female sex) and new ideologies about gender equality. It is no coincidence that the legal equality of men and women was already enshrined in the first Soviet Constitution of 1918. But this equality did not become equality of opportunity; the lines of the Constitution could not be translated into reality and remained only a text for all “citizens of both sexes of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic who turned eighteen years old by election day” (Chapter 13. Paragraph 64). Famous words of V.I. Lenin’s statement that not a single state and not a single democratic legislation “did for women even half of what the Soviet government did in the very first months of its existence,” were fair only with regard to the right of women to “go and choose.” The representation of women in higher and local government bodies remained negligible; only one (A.M. Kollontai) was elected to the highest level - the People's Commissar for Charity Affairs.

In the name of achieving actual equality between men and women in the family sphere in the early 1920s. A number of important and unique events were held. Thus, already on December 18 and December 19, 1917, the decrees “On civil marriage, children and the maintenance of civil status books” and “On divorce” were adopted. The draft decree on civil marriage was drawn up by the outstanding feminist and revolutionary A.M. Kollon-tai. The first marriage registered by the Soviet authorities in the new Russia was precisely her marriage - a rich “bourgeoisie” by birth and the revolutionary sailor P.E. who was in love with her. Dybenko (who was almost half the age of A.M. Kollontai). Adopted in the very first month as urgent (due to demographic importance), these decrees formed the basis of a separate family law act adopted on October 22, 1918 - the “Code of Laws on Civil Status, Marriage, Family and Guardianship Law.” He argued that “marriage is a private matter of the spouses,” declared all old church registry books to have no legal significance and introduced civil registration books to replace them.

In contrast to the pre-revolutionary rules, husband and wife, according to the Code of 1918, were completely equal in their rights to choose their place of residence and surname - those who got married could take both the husband’s surname and the wife’s surname, combine them together and be called a double surname. Divorce in the conditions of that time was simplified to the extreme. The Code did not impose obligations on spouses to live together and be faithful. Issues regarding alimony were to be resolved by the social security departments of the people's commissariats, guided by the degree of need and ability of the applicants to work. At the same time, the law equalized the status of legitimate and illegitimate children, and also fixed the possibility of establishing paternity in court (three months before the release of the burden - Article 140). Even if the defendant brought witnesses indicating that at the time of the alleged conception the plaintiff was cohabiting with each of them and it was difficult to determine the father of the child, the court could impose an obligation to collect alimony from all these alleged fathers in shared proportions.

The 1918 Marriage Code was in effect for eight years. The implementation of the provisions adopted in it took place against the background of not only complex disruptions, restructuring and restructuring of various areas of social life, but also the general cultural backwardness of the Russian population, the instability of life, and general psychological disorientation. The old administrative bodies were liquidated, and the population did not have confidence in the new ones. The result of the efforts of Bolshevik ideologists to politically mobilize individuals and their orientation towards the speedy approach of a communist paradise was the de-familization of social life and the primitivization of moral norms. Having separated the church from the state and recognizing church weddings as unimportant, the new government established its control over the marriages of individuals, and began to dictate new norms for regulating private life. Year after year, the family sphere became politicized; ethacratic marriage order, in which it was the state that usurped the right to sanction (instead of the church) the conclusion of marriage bonds and interfere in the lives of families. As a social institution, marriage could exist without the participation of the state; as an agreement that must be sanctioned - no, since it was the state that became the only source of legal initiative. Polygamy was prohibited even for persons professing Islam. Orthodox marriage norms were ridiculed as a manifestation of political backwardness. This caused bewilderment and indignation among foreign lawyers.

The first Code was in force for eight years, the new one - the Code on Marriage, Family and Guardianship of 1926 - gave legal significance to de facto marital relations (unregistered cohabitation) and, from a legal point of view, defended the interests of women. An entry about paternity in the child's birth certificate was made based on their written application (no evidence was required - the alleged father was only offered the opportunity to challenge this action of the mother through the court within a year, thus the presumption of maternal correctness was guaranteed by law). Earlier than anywhere else in Europe, in Soviet Russia in 1920, a woman’s right to an abortion was recorded (that is, women’s reproductive rights were regulated by law), the code confirmed it. Children born in marriage and those born out of wedlock became equal in rights. Pregnant and nursing mothers were protected by law and were given the right to paid leave - and the ideologists of Marxist feminism never tired of talking about this as a real achievement. The principle of community of family property was introduced, regardless of whether the marriage was only actual or officially registered (in court practice, a woman’s work in the household was increasingly equated to a man’s work in obtaining a livelihood).

Divorce through the courts was cancelled; divorce was introduced by postcard sent to the registry office by one of the spouses. Getting a divorce in Russia at that time became easier than signing out of the house register; the average duration of newly concluded marriages was eight months, many marriages were dissolved the day after registration. Suffice it to recall the novel “The Golden Calf”: “Just recently, the Stargorod registry office sent me a notice that my marriage with citizen Gritsatsueva was dissolved at the request of her and that I was given a premarital surname - O. Bender.”

A woman of that time - a “mobilized worker” and a “mobilized mother” - was, of course, under the protection of the state. “The separation of the kitchen from marriage is a great reform, no less important than the separation of church and state, at least in the historical fate of women,” believed A.M. Kollontai. Motherhood appeared in her articles, as well as in the works of other ideologists of that time, as a “socialist duty”, because according to the Bolshevik gender project it was assumed that the educational functions of parents would be transferred to Soviet communal institutions, therefore, only one thing was expected from a woman - readiness to give birth.

“There is no need to ‘mourn’ over the disappearance of individual farming, because a woman’s life will become richer, fuller, more joyful and freer from this,” A.M. believed. Kollontai. In the twenties, the paternalistic role, the role of the father-patriarch, should (ideally) be taken on by the state. Allegorically, this was constantly emphasized in the works of activists of the women's movement of that time, in their statements that the socialist state will always support a single mother, regardless of the presence or absence of marriage ties; A.M.’s book is almost entirely devoted to this topic. Kollontai “Family and the communist state.” “The task is not to make individual life easier, our task is to build a social life. Now it’s better to suffer with old washcloths, irons, frying pans, so that all available means and strength are used to set up public institutions - canteens, nurseries, kindergartens,” ideological magazines convinced women. Meanwhile, the woman-mother as an individual, as a woman in fact, was not interested in the fatherland. Her emotional connection with her husband was forcibly destroyed (the economic base of the family was destroyed along with the destruction of private property).

The process of state mobilization of women in the service of Soviet construction in Soviet historiography was idealized and viewed as the emancipation of women and the solution to the “women’s question,” while neither those who elected nor those elected could have a decisive influence on the process of political decision-making. The growth of literacy and education of the female population, liberation from economic dependence in the family were, to be honest, important results of this policy, but we should not forget that liberation from patriarchal dependence and “cultivation” presupposed political mobilization, indoctrination of women, which the gender contract between the worker-mother and the state was simply undeniable.

2nd stage- late 1920s - mid 1950s. - conceptualized as "totalitarian androgyny" an attempt to create a sexless “Soviet man.” This period can be spoken of as a time of almost undivided (with the exception of a small layer of the metropolitan nomenklatura) dominance of the ethacratic contract “working mother”. This was a period of severe economic mobilization of women. which naturally led to the cultivation of asexuality. The best expression of the desire for totalitarian androgyny was the cliche “Soviet man” - a concept that did not exclude, but rather presupposed essentialism and sexism.

In the period under review, there is a “great turning point” - 1929-1934, which corresponds to a traditionalist rollback in the policy of family and marriage relations. The beginning of this period corresponds to the first five-year plans for industrialization and collectivization, and is then marked by the official declaration that the women's question in the Soviet Union has been "settled." This meant, in particular, the liquidation of all women’s departments and women’s councils, which by the early 1930s. were closed along with many other public organizations that allegedly fulfilled their purpose (Anti-Fascist Committee, Society of Political Prisoners, etc.). The remaining and newly created women's associations were not even formally independent organizations and existed exclusively as “drive belts” of party policy. Among them is a movement formed “from above” for women to master male professions (tractor drivers, pilots, public transport drivers). “The involvement of women in the environment of social production” (as Lenin dreamed of) turned into drawing them into the sphere of non-female labor. They worked as combine operators in the countryside, construction workers and railway workers in the city, and drove cars - never becoming the personal chauffeurs of the party bosses. They were drivers of trams, trucks, and crane operators.

Forced to work intensively outside the home, women did not have the opportunity to pay sufficient attention to themselves, their family, and children. Nevertheless, the Soviet press tried to convince women - who gradually turned, in the words of the writer Andrei Platonov, into “comrades with a special device” - how important it was for these “devices” to produce many children, and they, she swore while still alive then, but forever the childless wife of leader N.K. Krupskaya, will certainly become “objects of universal concern.” The upbringing of children in Russia at that time was increasingly moving away from the family and maternal: the absolute majority of them grew up in nurseries and kindergartens (the payment for maintenance in which was, however, meager).

The 1930s are considered a period of “great retreat” from revolutionary policies towards the family, a “step back”, a return to traditionalist norms. However, this is not entirely true. Firstly, government policy supported precisely new family - the first cell of Soviet society, a family that subordinated the regime of its life to the requirements of the Soviet labor collective. Secondly, the policy of women's emancipation was still pursued in the village: peasant women were encouraged to free themselves from the tyranny of their husbands and fathers, and to defend their status as independent collective farmers, equal to men. It is no coincidence that the collective farmers themselves confidently repeated: “collective farms have given us complete economic independence from men - father, husband, father-in-law,” “a woman is now an independent person in all respects.” In connection with the growing increase in divorces and the flight of husbands, single mothers constituted a significant social category both in cities and in rural areas, which day after day learned independent activities outside the home. Some learned this while working in production, while others interacted with the authorities, bombarding local authorities with requests for help in finding a missing spouse who does not pay alimony. Industrialization was accompanied by new housing policies that influenced marriage patterns. The housing issue during the period of large-scale migration of the rural population to cities and the reshuffling of the urban population was resolved through mass communalization of housing. Communal houses in reality remained only a utopia and Bolshevik Manilovism - in a crippled form, this idea was realized in the system of workers' barracks and dormitories.

In “commune houses” and communal apartments, a woman’s place was “typically female”: no one tried to “accustom” her husband to cooking, all household chores were distributed among female neighbors. Describing the dormitory for chemistry students, I. Ilf and E. Petrov recalled: “The pink house with a mezzanine is something between a housing association and a feudal village... The rooms were similar to pencil cases, with the only difference that in addition to pencils and pens, there were people and Primus stoves here.” The desire for comfort in the home and reluctance to share details of family life were considered a manifestation of individualism and “bourgeois” egoism. Communal apartments have become symbols of everyday control and surveillance of the private sphere; the family as a private sphere ceased to exist. At the same time, the concept of a woman’s maternal and marital duty entered into the circulation of ideological and political manipulation. It is no coincidence that housekeepers appeared in the houses of party functionaries at that time. They served as maids and looked after the master's children. These were young and not so young women, as a rule, who came from villages, expelled from their homes by hunger and lack of rights.

The 30s were the time of the active offensive of the Soviet state in all areas of the private sector. Of course, privacy could not be destroyed, but it became marginalized and became subject to surveillance. Freedom of movement turned out to be limited: in 1932, the passport system and the “propiska” system were introduced in the USSR. At the same time, in the public discourse of the thirties, sexuality was associated with reproduction. In 1935, the production of contraceptives ceased in the USSR, the culture of contraception ceased to develop, fiction cultivated images of strong men who did not delve into the experiences of their wives and considered the latter as an object for satisfying sexual desires, almost as “bedding.”

In order to “educate” women and strengthen the family, a law was passed in 1936 that made divorce difficult (this story continued: from 1944, divorce became generally possible only through the court), abortions were prohibited (except for the so-called “ abortions for medical reasons"). In modern feminist discourse, such actions are regarded as a defeat of women in their reproductive rights. All these actions were a naive attempt by a totalitarian state to reverse the downward trend in the birth rate, but the paradoxical result of the cruelty shown to women was not an increase, but a decrease in the birth rate. According to one American researcher of Russian realities, the authorities treated a woman as something between a generator and a cow: a woman was expected to work like a machine in production and “give birth like a cow” at home.

The response of Russian women to strictness and prohibitions was passive resistance - tricks with the help of which the weak tried to “defend themselves and defend their rights to each other, as well as to the strong.<...>These strategies are a set of ways that allow a person who is tasked with receiving orders, rather than giving them, to achieve what he wants." Some followed the path of passive adaptation (say, strengthening the family for individual survival or participating in signing collective written complaints and denunciations), others took an active one, trying to occupy key positions in the social hierarchy through marriage with nomenklatura workers or through participation in movement of Stakhanovkas, social activists.

The most expressive phenomenon in Russian women's history of the pre-war period was the “Movement of Social Women”, which was, in fact, a society controlled from above by the wives of executives. It clearly demonstrated the traditionalist component of gender policy, which presupposed the glorification of status wives as the support of the husband, family and, ultimately, the state.

A special period of this stage was the Great Patriotic War. Wartime was characterized by special forms of gender mobilization, because during the war, women began to engage in those completely unfeminine, but well-paid activities that had previously been performed only or predominantly by men. These were not only difficult and harmful productions for women, but also various administrative positions. After the end of the war, in 1945, women were nevertheless forced out of all those spheres where they, by chance, found leadership (primarily from the posts of directors, heads of workshops, production facilities) - this was facilitated by the increase in the “symbolic value” of men , which were not enough for everyone.

The traditional functions of the division of labor between the sexes were successfully revived and were mobilized in conditions of constant shortages of consumer goods. Women knitted, sewed, cooked, organized life in an economy of scarcity: they “procured” goods. Men had their own specialization in demand: their skills in traditionally male types of housekeeping (repair, carpentry, etc.) “came to life,” but women’s labor contribution to family life was incomparably higher.

3rd stage- from the mid-1950s to the beginning of “perestroika” - began during the “thaw” period and continued throughout Brezhnev’s long twenty years. The fresh wind of political liberalization was familiar the emerging crisis of the ethcratic gender order, erosion of its central image - the “working mother”, if only because women began to be expected to be more involved in household chores. The ethcratic nature of the Soviet gender order persisted in the 1950s and into the 1970s: the state continued to regulate almost everything: employment, social policy regarding the family and women, and formed official discourses interpreting femininity and masculinity . However, it was with the political “thaw” that changes in gender policy entered the life of the country, a partial restoration of the importance of private life, and the formation of discourses opposing the official one accelerated.

The mid-1950s, when the criminalization of abortion was abolished and thus marked the liberalization of state reproductive policy, can be considered the symbolic boundary between the second and third stages of gender policy in the USSR. The state finally gave medical institutions and the family (primarily women) the functions of control over childbirth policy. But this policy was not supported by sexuality education and the availability of reliable contraceptives. The decriminalization of abortion did not yet mean its disappearance as a means of contraception; moreover, medical abortion became a widespread experience and the main way to control reproduction and family planning. In the official discourse, abortion was hushed up; in medical practices it became a symbol of punishment for women (hormonal contraceptives and IUDs were not purchased in the West, vacuum abortions in the early stages were prohibited, and anesthesia and pain relief were used to a limited extent until the mid-1980s) . In essence, all this was a punishment for those women who refused to fulfill their “women’s duty” and give birth to a child, although the reason for the spread of such a peculiar abortion culture could also be the elementary illiteracy of Russian doctors.

Intergenerational connections, especially between women, became the backbone of any family. In fact, in the second half of the 20th century. It was matrifocality that became typical (young families living with the wife’s parents) and, using the expression of A. Rothkirch, “extended motherhood”, in other words - the institutionalization of the role grandmothers, Without them (women of the older generation), the child had to be sent to nurseries, kindergartens, and after-school groups for a long time, since otherwise the family would have difficulty making ends meet: a non-working mother raising children was the exception rather than the rule .

The time in question (Khrushchev and Brezhnev) is a time of many positive changes in the position of Soviet women, a time of mass housing construction, partial “rehabilitation” of personal life. Despite all the irony embedded in the lexeme “Khrushchev”, it was the mass individualization of housing, as opposed to Stalin’s communal apartments, that opened up new opportunities in arranging personal life in the early 1960s. The family became increasingly autonomous; raising children, organizing everyday life, and intimate feelings went beyond the constant control of the spies.

It was the period of “thaw” and stagnation that became the time for the deployment of state assistance to divorced women and single mothers. The state actively implemented a pronatal social policy and transmitted ideological guidelines that identified “proper femininity” with motherhood. Numerous, but insignificant in value, benefits for pregnant women and mothers in the 1970-1980s. were intended not only to stimulate childbearing - they defined the “ideology of motherhood” as the natural destiny of women. It was at this time that the gender regime was finally formalized, in which the status of “working mother” was declared an achievable ideal. This status also shaped the dominant gender composition. Among the measures that could change the situation of the falling birth rate were the influence on public opinion, the promotion of early marriage, the undesirability of divorce and increasing family size.

At the same time, in conditions of demographic decline, the problem of combining two roles - mother and worker - gradually began to be recognized in public discourse in terms of the excessive “masculinization” of women and the need to overcome it through. “the return of a woman to the family.” To change the situation, it was proposed to develop the service sector, industrialize everyday life, and strengthen the mechanization of the household. Privatization families gave rise to (neo)traditionalist interpretations of the female role, which presupposed restrictions on women’s participation in the public sphere.

Meanwhile, in the context of the naturalization of the female role - namely, the promotion of the ideology of motherhood as a natural destiny - the social infrastructure (medical, preschool institutions, consumer services) turned out to be inappropriate to the needs of the family. All this helped to develop individual strategies for adapting to such structural problems. Women began to actively use social networks - friends, relatives, various family connections, primarily intergenerational ones. Without the grandmother, it became impossible to raise the child. That's when it became everyday practice.

The ideal Soviet woman half a century or a quarter century ago is a woman oriented towards family and motherhood, but at the same time working in Soviet enterprises and institutions (not for the sake of a professional career, for the sake of supporting the family - without a second income, the mother’s income , the family could not survive). Women workers devoted 2-2.5 times more time to housework than men, and accordingly had less time to increase their qualifications and develop personal potential. Women's occupations formed the basis of the household and absorbed so much non-working time that they formed a kind of second shift for women.

The crisis of the ethacratic gender order manifested itself in the problematization of the Soviet male role. The feminization of men was unexpectedly and sharply criticized; alarmist sentiments were heard in the press regarding their early mortality, poorer adaptability to life’s difficulties, high morbidity rates due to the prevalence of industrial injuries, the prevalence of bad habits, and alcoholism. The liberal slogan “Take care of men!”, coined by sociologist B.Ts. Urlanis and became widespread in the late 1960s. , victimized the Soviet man, presenting him as a victim of a different (than a woman) physiology, social modernization and specific life circumstances.

Liberal-critical discourse of the 1960s-1980s. offered several models of “men for all seasons”. Among the normative examples of that time - the “Russian nobleman” (even better - the Decembrist, a man of honor, this was the time of passion for the books of B.Sh. Okudzhava, N.Ya. Eidelman, Yu.M. Lotman); “Soviet warrior” who defended the Motherland on the fronts of the Civil and Great Patriotic Wars (the Brezhnev era greatly contributed to the actualization of this image, since Leonid Ilyich himself was a war veteran and since 1965 the country began to celebrate May 9 with special solemnity ); as well as the romanticized “Western cowboy” (whose image was shaped by the rare Western films that made their way onto our screens). These ideals were unattainable; they were not provided by the structural possibilities of the then official publicity. “True masculinity” (if such exists at all as a general ideal) could take the form of male friendship (“A friend is always ready to give up a place in a boat and a circle.” - in this song the lyrical hero “gave in” to a friend even his beloved), true professionalism ( to increase which men always had time, which women, exhausted by constant care for loved ones, did not have), and sometimes - romanticized deviations (casual relationships, parallel families, etc.). Next to each of these heroes of his time there was always one who created the background and context for him, a “strange woman” (I remember that was the name of a popular movie with I. Kupchenko in the title role). It was she who was responsible for strict and systematic control over the health of her spouse or lover, was responsible for the health of the family, for the correct lifestyle - for herself, her children and her husband.

Last, 4th stage coincides with the beginning of political and economic reforms, “perestroika” in the mid-1980s. And continues to this day. The past quarter century has embraced many events and changes; partial liberalization and erosion of the old gender order gave rise to a new traditionalism in public official discourse and the continuation of a newfound tendency towards complementarity of gender roles in everyday practices. No matter how offensive it may be for the powers that be to realize this, no matter how much they rely on church traditions in their projects, in the era of the Internet, total control over the everyday private life of citizens is largely lost. These processes are accompanied by a natural transformation of the demographic model, and in this they are similar to the processes in developed Western countries, where there is also a focus on late marriages, small families, and “delayed” parenthood. By the beginning of the 1990s. unregistered de facto marriages have become an undeniably acceptable social norm, and society’s tolerance for them is growing. At the same time, the abolition of strict state control over family and women, which was characteristic of the early 1990s, was replaced in the early 2000s. convulsive attempts to increase the number of children (the number of births in each individual family), to force women to agree to perform the educational function at home and to refuse self-realization outside it.

During the period of these socio-political transformations, the state lost its decisive role in constructing the gender order. In place of the old gender politics, conflicting public discourses (both oriented toward neotraditionalism and those sharply criticizing it) and new everyday practices arose. New gender roles have emerged, new interpretations of femininity and masculinity, and new actors taking part in the “production of gender.” The crisis of the old Soviet projects of masculinity and femininity is the last phase of the ethacratic gender order. On the right it is criticized by Orthodox traditionalists, on the left - by supporters of the feminist understanding of equal rights, each side offers its own projects for reforming the previous gender composition. The current gender order inherits some features of the late Soviet one; throughout Soviet history - as we have noticed - it showed variability caused by changing political constellations. Some processes (raising the age of marriage, the independence of women, the birth of “new fatherhood” with its concern for the younger generation) are obviously common to all of Europe, others (orientation towards traditionalism, an increase in the layer of sponsored women and at the same time the strength, if not inescapability, of the “working mother” contract) is rooted in the history of Russian everyday life.

The gender order - historically given patterns of power relations between men and women - takes shape in certain societies at the institutional, ideological, symbolic and everyday levels. Cm.: Cornell R.Gender and Power. Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. N. Y.: Stanford University Press, 1987. pp. 98-99.

The etacracy system presupposes strong nationalization in the production sphere, class-stratified stratification of a hierarchical type, in which the position of individuals and groups is determined by their nomenklatura or other rank assigned by state authorities, the absence of civil society, the rule of law and the presence of a citizenship system, partyocracy, militarization of the economy (Radaev V.V., Shkaratan O.I. Social stratification. M.: Aspectpress, 1996. P. 260).

Lapidus G.Women in Soviet society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. R. 54-94; Blackher F.The Soviet Woman in Family and Society. New York; Toronto, 1986;Buckley M.Women and Ideology in the Soviet Union. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1989;Atwood L.The New Soviet Man and Woman. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990; Russian gender order: a sociological approach / Ed. E. Zdravomyslova, A. Temkina. St. Petersburg: European University Publishing House, 2007.

For more details see: BuckleyM. Women and Ideology in the Soviet Union. Ann Arbor : The University of Michigan Press, 1989.

In 1926, women made up 75% of all illiterate people, claimed an American journalist, a contemporary of the events described ( KingsburyS., FairchildM. Factory, Family and Woman in the Soviet Union. New York: AMS Press, 1935. R. 169).

Motivation was provided by prominent Bolshevik ideologists; see, for example: Kollontai AM. Women's work in the evolution of the national economy. M.; Pg., 1923. P. 4.

Elizarova A.I. Memoirs // Communist. 1922. No. 2. P. 15; Kollontai A.M. Preface. Resolutions of the First All-Russian Conference of Women Workers. Pg.: State Publishing House, 1920. P. 7; It's her. New morality and the working class. M., 1919. P. 17.

Armand I. Report at the international conference of communists // International conference of communists. M., 1921. P. 84; Aivazova S.G. Russian women in the labyrinth of equality. Essays on literary theory and history. Documentary materials. M.: RIK Rusanova, 1998.

Mikheev M. Into the world of A. Platonov - through his language. Assumptions, facts, interpretations, guesses. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2002 (http://lib.next-one.ru/cgi-bin/alt/PLATONOW/miheev_platonov.txt).

A.M. Kollontai wrote: “I did not intend to legalize our relationship, but Pavel’s arguments - “if we get married, we will be together until our last breath” - shook me. The moral prestige of the People's Commissars was also important. A civil marriage would put an end to all the whisperings and smiles behind our backs..." (quoted from: Bezelyansky Yu. Eros in the uniform of a diplomat // Aka. Faith. Hope. Love. Women's portraits. M.: Raduga, 2001 ).

At first, the husband’s right to take his wife’s surname was not essential for the survival of the family, but was rather a realization of the idea of ​​equal rights for women. But later - with the consolidation of the policy of state anti-Semitism, that is, in the 1930-1950s - this right acquired an important meaning, since in the case of differences in ethnic origin it gave the opportunity to choose for each spouse and for their children of the surname that gave the best life chances (that is, Russian, an example of this is the Mironova-Menaker family, the surname of the famous actor is Andrei Mironov).

For more details see: Goykhbarg A.G. Marriage, family and guardianship law of the Soviet Republic. M., 1920.

Golod S.I. Issues of family and sexual morality in discussions of the 20s. // Marxist ethical thought in the USSR: Essays / Ed. O.P. Tselikova. M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1989.

Pushkareva N.L., Kazmina O.E. Marriage in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia // Family ties. Models for assembly. Book 1 / Ed. S.A. Ushakina. M.: New Literary Review, 2004. pp. 185-219.

Collection of laws of the RSFSR. M., 1926. No. 82; Boshko V.I. Essays on Soviet family law. Kyiv: Gospolitizdat of the Ukrainian SSR, 1952. P. 60-61.

Genkin D.M., Novitsky I.B., Rabinovich N.V. History of Soviet civil law. 1917-1947. M.: Legal. Publishing house of the USSR Ministry of Justice, 1949. P. 436.

Borodina A.V., Borodin D.Yu. Baba or comrade? The ideal of the new Soviet woman in the 20s - 30s. // Women's and gender studies at Tver State University. Tver: Tver State University,

2000. pp. 45-51.

Zdravomyslova EA, Temkina AA. Soviet ethacratic gender order // Social history. 2003. Special issue on gender history; GoldmanW. Women, the State and Revolution. Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-1936. Cambridge

Pushkareva N.L., Kazmina O.E. Marriage in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia // Family ties. Models for assembly. Book 1 / Ed. S.A. Ushakina. M.: New Literary Review, 2004. pp. 185-219.

All-Union Conference of Wives of Business Executives and Engineering and Technical Workers of Heavy Industry. M.: Partizdat, 1936. P. 258.

Krupskaya N.K. I wish you success in your work! // A woman in the country of the Soviets is an equal citizen. M.: Partizdat, 1938. P. 122-123.

Goldman W.Women, the State and Revolution. Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-1936. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Clements B.E.The Birth of the New Soviet Woman// Bolshe-vik Culture: Experiment and Order in Russian Revolution/ A. Gleason, P. Kenez, R. Stites (Eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. P. 220.

To the leader, teacher and friend of the collective farmers! Letter from the collective farmers of the collective farm “12th October”, Tarasovsky district, Rostov region // Kolkhoznitsa. 1937. No. 11. P. 10.

Sign up for our application! Letter from 26 collective farm workers from the Troitsk MTS of the Slavic region of the Azov-Black Sea region to the All-Union Congress of Writers (August 1934) // Mo-lot. 1934. 28 Aug.

Denisova L.N. Russian peasant woman in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. M.: New Chronograph, 2011.

N. L. Pushkareva
Motherhood as a socio-historical phenomenon
(Review of foreign research on the history of European motherhood)
The study of motherhood as a socio-cultural phenomenon with its own characteristics and characteristics among different nations has its own history in Western science. Almost all scientists in different European countries, who in one way or another turned to the history of the family, church and family law, also touched upon the problems of the history of parenthood, and therefore motherhood. However, until the emergence of new approaches to the study of historical psychology and social history, which modern specialists rightly associate with the French Annales school, the topic “history of motherhood” was not recognized as independent and valuable in its own right by the world scientific community. It was included as a component in ethnological and psychological, medical and, partly, legal research, but no one spoke of it as interdisciplinary and unusually relevant.
The first steps towards changing this situation were made by publications on the history of childhood, for it was they who made it possible to look at the history of parenthood differently - to pose new questions aimed at identifying certain general cultural and historical models of motherhood in Europe that corresponded to certain time periods.
In the classic work of the French historian, one of the founders of the Annales school, Philippe Ariès, who was justly criticized by medievalists of all countries - primarily for the very controversial conclusion about the absence in the Middle Ages of "the idea of ​​childhood and its value for humans" - no attention was paid to There is too much attention to the question of the specific functions and significance of the father and mother in the life of a child in the pre-industrial era. In a certain sense, this fact followed from the author’s very concept of the first phases of the history of childhood: the early medieval, when children were “not noticed” and “often abandoned,” and the late medieval, when, according to him, the attitude towards children was marked by “ambivalence,” the assumption of the child to the life of adults, but without recognizing any of his own rights.
The concept of F. Ariès caused a storm of controversy on the pages of books and magazines, but there were also scientists who generally agreed with the French researcher (for example, in England and the USA, respectively, L. Stone and L. De Maus). It is curious, however, that both they and their critics (let’s name E. Shorter) agreed that the “emergence” of maternal love at the beginning of modern times became a kind of “motor”, a “source of movement” in changes in family life and everyday life of children (for example, L. Pollock believed that “until the 17th century there was no concept of childhood and motherhood”). Moreover, each of the researchers saw in the “emergence of maternal love”, of course, only one, albeit the most important, factor. Other accompanying ones included “the spread of systematic secular schooling” (F. Aries), “the spread of psychological and medical knowledge”, “the development of bourgeois society” (E. Shorter), “the complication of the emotional world of people, the emergence of an indefinable spirit of benevolence "(including parents who have become able to better understand their children and meet their needs, as L. De Maus and, especially, E. Shorter believed).
On the contrary, psychologist Jerome Kagan saw the opposite relationship: the emergence of a new attitude towards the child, in particular maternal love, he believed, was the result of a change in the model of family life and the role of the child in society: with increasing life expectancy, children began to be increasingly seen as additional working hands in the family, breadwinners and maintainers in old age, and from here new emotions arose in relation to them.
Publications by F. Aries, L. De Maus, E. Shorter and J. Kagan opened the topic of “childhood history.” Their followers from different countries responded to it with an avalanche of publications, restoring the “child’s world” to times long gone, analyzing the understanding of infancy and adolescence in those days. Many works turned out to be related to the problem of perception of childhood and, in connection with it, motherhood in the Middle Ages. The main conclusion of medievalists was that the absence of a modern concept of motherhood in the Middle Ages (and in its Western European version) does not mean that it did not exist at all. And the task of scientists was to identify how views on motherhood and maternal love changed in different historical eras, among different peoples (it is only significant that even in the most generalizing works - such as, for example, “The Social History of Childhood” in the early 1980s) - There was no place for Eastern Europe and, especially, Russia: there were no trained specialists).
In the course of research undertaken, including by medievalists from different countries, a number of observations about child-parent relationships and their content in the pre-industrial era turned out to be very significant. Of undoubted interest was, for example, the work of the German literary critic D. Richter, who analyzed the fairy tales of various European peoples (including the collections of Charles Perrault and the Brothers Grimm) precisely from the point of view of how they reflect the relationship between parents and children, their stages and dynamics. A number of other German researchers proved that before the beginning of the modern era there was no clear division of games into “children’s” and “adults”: everyone played together. With the development of society, emphasized, for example, D. Elshenbroich, the function of play in education was left to mothers alone (and only when it came to children). The “gap” and alienation between a child and an adult (expressed, among other things, in the absence of joint games) grew simultaneously with the modernization of society.
Another topic of “childhood specialists” was the study of parenthood, including the history of parental (and, therefore, maternal) love. And here, the observation of a number of researchers of school and school education in the early modern period, who persistently denied the cruelty of parents, and mothers first of all, turned out to be important, cited facts of the opposite nature - the desire of parents to protect their children who were subjected (during training by masters, teachers in schools) to physical influence .
A very promising direction in the study of childhood and the related plot of mother-child relationships turned out to be the publication of excerpts from primary sources, selected on the topic “Children and their parents over three centuries” (the American L. Pollock was the responsible editor), since it made it possible to “get out” on the topic of children’s ideas about their parents, which is of interest to familists. Finally, specialists in the “history of childhood”, who considered it not only as a sociohistorical and sociocultural, but also a socio-confessional construct, came close to studying parenthood in this aspect, including, therefore, motherhood (the study should be considered especially successful in this aspect C. J. Sommersville, the final chapter of which was an analysis of parental feelings through the prism of Puritan individualism of the 17th century). But only from the end of the 2010s did the study of fatherhood, motherhood and the dynamics of their changes in history begin to be institutionalized as an independent research area.
It is not surprising that in androcentric societies and scientific communities, which most scientific institutions and universities in Europe and the USA have always been and still are, the close attention of scientists turned out to be paid primarily to paternity rather than motherhood. Fatherhood was seen as an exclusively social phenomenon that changed its appearance in different historical eras. In a collection of works published in Stuttgart under the leadership of Professor H. von Tellenbach (“The Image of the Father and Fatherhood in Myth and History”), it was emphasized that it has always been a “creative principle” and a source of authority. The purpose of the authors of the collection was to study ideas about fatherhood in the works of ancient authors, in the New Testament; they did not aim to compare views on fatherhood and motherhood, since they considered motherhood to be a “sociobiological” phenomenon rather than a completely “social” fatherhood.
Somewhat later, historians involved in the study of paternity strongly emphasized that “fatherly love” was - in comparison with maternal love - something “outside the norm”, and even in the works of women historians (for example, K. Opitz) it was considered mainly in categories of male frustrations when describing death or other forms of loss of children. It is noteworthy that for the entire subsequent twenty-five years, the study of the history of fatherhood continued in polemics with the study of the history of motherhood, in the context of a struggle with imaginary “mills”: that is, in the constant assertion of the right of this topic “to its own history” (although not a single feminist has ever disagreed with this argued).
To a very large extent, interest in the “history of motherhood” arose as a consequence of the strengthening of the cultural-anthropological direction in medieval studies, primarily in attempts to re-cover the history of the family and issues of historical demography. True, in the works of cultural anthropologists of the new (by the 1980s - already the second) generation of the Annales school, women still appeared more often as “wives”, “widows”, and in relation to the 18th century - as “friends” and “like-minded people”. J.-L. Flandran in France, L. Stone in England, R. Trumbach in the USA developed the history of family relations in France, Belgium, England and other European countries in the Middle Ages, but women as mothers appeared in these books primarily in the context of references to the circumstances of everyday life. time, conception and birth of children, their breastfeeding. That is, interest in the “history of motherhood” was initially not similar to interest in the “history of fatherhood.” Motherhood was seen as a “natural” and even “biological” predestination of a woman as a mother. To a certain extent, this approach was dictated by the sources: the researchers seemed to follow the preachers, theologians, didactics, and writers of the Middle Ages, for whom this particular distribution of emphasis was obvious.
The same obviousness seemed to be the “timekeeping” of child-parent (and in particular, child-mother) relationships, the division of the “history of childhood” (and, consequently, the history of parenthood) into two eras: “before” the 18th century. both the Enlightenment era and “after” (there were researchers who denied this statement, but they were in the minority). The fact that “after” the Enlightenment era, the upbringing of children and the attitude of mothers towards them became different was not disputed by almost anyone, in any country (the most consistent defender of this idea was and remains E. Shorter - but his peremptory and harshness is constantly disputed: dozens have been written articles that prove that even before the notorious 18th century, the attitude of mothers towards their children could be both tender and sympathetic). At the same time, almost all modern foreign scientists are ready to agree that a clear definition of maternal and paternal roles in the current understanding of the word is a phenomenon that has accompanied since the mid-18th century. the birth of “an individualized and intimateized family of the bourgeois type, truly nuclear (due to its isolation and separation).”
A wide range of sources of personal origin (letters, autobiographies, memoirs - that is, the so-called ego-documents) allowed specialists in the history of modern times to pose questions that reveal the individual psychology of representatives of different social strata. The strengthening of the biographical direction and method in the system of historical sciences gave another impetus to the study of motherhood. In essence, this was a reorientation from the positivist collection of facts about childhood and parenthood to the study of the history of interaction between children and parents, that is, what parents thought about their childhood and their children, how they sought to take into account the mistakes and achievements of personal experience in raising children . A similar approach also included an analysis of children’s assessments of parents and, above all (since this was better represented in the sources) of mothers. The call to deepen and develop biography in the social sciences has been answered by the publication of personal sources written by women; among them there were even such rare ones as, for example, the memoirs of a Danish midwife of the late 17th - early 18th centuries.
In the works of the German researcher Irena Hardach-Pincke, who analyzed dozens of autobiographies, favorably received by scientific criticism, Messrs. from the point of view of their informativeness on the “history of childhood,” her favorite idea was affirmed about the constant “balancing” of the relationship between mother and child (at the time she was considering) “between fear/intimidation and love.” In the collection of documents collected and published by her, a special chapter was devoted to the images of parents in the biographies of grown-up children and, consequently, to the assessments by the children themselves of the care and affection shown towards them, punishments and their cruelty, love, respect, etc. The image of the mother in autobiographical literature of the 18th century. acted most often as an image of a “mediator” between children and the head of the family. Even closer to the topic we are considering was the work of I. Hardach-Pinke’s compatriot A. Cleaver, whose task included the analysis of more than “female” (and, what is especially valuable, “maternal”!) texts, which allowed the author to consider how they influenced the real maternal behavior and “ideal” (literary) self-expression of the authors of these texts; everyday speech practices - “everyday profane, political and philosophical discourses” at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. In a recently published collection of articles, “Maternal Instinct: Perspectives on Motherhood and Sexuality in Britain,” the authors attempted to link and compare social expectations (iconic maternity) and reality and came to the conclusion that “the polarization of motherhood and sexuality ended precisely at the beginning of the 20th century.”
Medievalists, on the other hand, were more likely to focus on the study of specific, traditional and, so to speak, “materially tangible” aspects of medieval parenthood. These topics were, first of all, topics related to the history of medicine. Therefore, one of the most developed questions was the question of how parents performed the functions of house doctors in the early Middle Ages. Directly related to the “maternal” theme were other aspects of the history of medicine (obstetrics and assistance during difficult births) and, in particular, micropediatrics (women’s responsibility for the survival of children and the care of mothers for babies, features of breastfeeding and the diet of nursing mothers and hired wet nurses) . It is worth noting the unusually informative “Chronology of Events in the History of Childbirth,” compiled in the late 1980s. J. Levitt and which was an appendix to her book “Childbirth in America,” which traces the entire history of medicine from the point of view of significant advances in the birth of children from the year until the middle of the 20th century. (the first successful caesarean section, after which both mother and child survived; the first translation of one or another medical treatise; the first experiences of listening to the fetus in the womb, etc.).
Quite popular in the late 's - early 's. Problems of historical demography related to motherhood also arose: the fertility and sterility of women, the frequency of intergenetic intervals, the number of children in families, the survival of children, the duration of fertile age. Somewhat apart - due to the unusual way the question was posed - stood in the historiography of the turn of the 1980s. work by V. Fields on the diet of children by mothers (after breastfeeding) in the 18th - 19th centuries. . To a certain extent, this topic was also touched upon by those who studied the so-called structures of everyday life - everyday life, the peculiarities of the way of life of different peoples, in different historical eras. But, of course, both demographers and historians of everyday life (we are talking about them, not ethnographers) touched on the topic of motherhood, as a rule, in passing.
A very noticeable direction in the study of medieval motherhood was the study of the legal aspects of the topic, because - according to the most prominent French researcher of social history J. Delumeau - motherhood and fatherhood of the early Middle Ages in general were “represented mainly in the form of legal institutions.” It is noteworthy that, for example, in German historiography these subjects turned out to be worked out very thoroughly and in relation to different historical eras: some of the scientists - following K. Marx - analyzed the legal aspects of motherhood from the standpoint of contrasting the “private” and “public” spheres, others - following V. Wulf from the standpoint of their inextricable connection, reflection and display, exploitation of one or another ideologically acceptable idea in the legal sphere. Feminists in Germany and the United States, analyzing the current situation, forced discussion of the need for “positive discrimination of a woman-mother” (that is, her special rights that a man cannot have - this, in fact, was the subject of a whole collection of articles on the history of legal protection of motherhood from the years to the 20th century, published under the editorship of G. Bock and P. Ten), posing the general problem as the problem of “mother’s rights - human rights.” It is not surprising that the most well-founded works on these issues were written by specialists in the history of modern times, since by the beginning of the 20th century. The legal consciousness of people in European countries has reached recognition of the need for such “legislative regulation of reproductive issues.”
A huge step forward in the study of the “history of motherhood” was the emergence in the 1960s of a special direction in the humanities, called “women’s studies”. As is known, it united the interests of economists and lawyers, psychologists and sociologists, teachers and literary scholars. Supporters of this trend in history set the goal of “restoring historical justice” and “making visible” not only eminent and high-brow heroes, but also heroines of the past, and not by some kind of addition, adding a “female enzyme” to an already written history, but by writing “another history" - specifically female and, one might say, "gynocentric".
The implementation of this task turned out to be easier for modernists (that is, specialists in the history of Europe after the year, and especially in the 19th century), whose task included studying the early forms of women’s political struggle for equality and, in general, for their rights. The “maternal theme” immediately found itself at the center of feminist discourse in all European countries - as emphasized by A.T. Allen, the author of the monograph “Feminism and Motherhood in Germany,” - since she personally confronted “maternalism” (the concept of the traditional nature of maternal duty and the “specialness” of a woman’s status in connection with its existence) and feminism with its idea of ​​a woman’s equal right to self-realization in any sphere, including non-family, raising the problem of the existence of “gender-neutral equality in relation to parenthood”. From this topic was born the topic of the formation and awareness of women of their gender identity, which by the mid-s won the attention of the readership in France, Germany, England and other countries. In particular, in German science it was in the late 1980s and early 2000s. the opinion has been established that “the concept of motherhood is relatively new” and its formation is directly related to the formation of the ideology of the burghers, that is, it dates back to the 17th century. . Even more widespread was and remained the point of view according to which maternal identity began to be recognized by women simultaneously with the awareness of (and as part of) female identity (and this process was associated with the second half of the 18th century).
Of course, it was impossible to reveal the topic of awareness and acceptance of any ideologeme (in this case, “good motherhood”) without the ego-documents already mentioned above (thus, in German historiography, for example, a study appeared that recreated women’s, including maternal, identity based on a comprehensive analysis of women's letters). Next in line were pedagogical books from the mid-18th to mid-19th centuries, which oriented mothers toward “correct” upbringing, as well as an analysis of didactic stereotypes in school textbooks, in family and non-family education, and in literary fiction. Ultimately, the researchers came to the inevitable conclusion that not only in bygone times, but also in the last century and at the present time, motherhood forms one of the most important “spaces” of a woman’s spiritual and social world (“Frauenraum”) and, therefore, without studying this phenomenon, “the problem of the relationship between different sexual identities cannot only be understood, but even posed.”
At the same time, some of the researchers - primarily E. Badinter - became unwitting successors of F. Aries: insisting on the social predetermination of maternal relationships (and thus arguing with those who considered only fatherhood a truly social institution), they began to see motherhood as an “invention” (invention) of capitalism, and the “invention” for the rich, while the “poor,” in their opinion, continued to “suffer from the lack of positive emotional connections.” Assessing the entire centuries-old history of motherhood until the mid-18th century. as a period of “maternal indifference”, E. Badinter, in the French edition of her study, published under the “telling” title “Love in addition”, attributed to the evidence (“signs”) of this indifference a calm attitude towards the deaths of babies, the prevalence of throwing up “extra” children , refusal to feed them, “selectivity” in relation to children (love for some and deliberate humiliation of others) - that is, in essence, repeated the arguments of F. Aries.
It is noteworthy that in relation to the “turning epoch” - the 16th century. - E. Badinter was categorical, insisting on the absence of any positive changes in the relationship between mothers and children in the era of early liberation (emancipation) of the female personality. Even speaking about the 18th century, the author believed, one should not so much look for rare examples of emotional mutual understanding in families with children, but rather the prevalence of giving them up to raise or shifting all worries about him onto the shoulders of governesses.
At the same time, a number of German historians who studied motherhood in the 19th century considered it such an established and static social institution (let’s cite Iv. Schütze as an example) that they saw in “maternal love until the middle of the 20th century - N.P. rather a form imputed to a woman’s responsibility.” its disciplining" (which only after the Second World War experienced supposedly "strong psychologization and rationalization"). Most specialists in the Middle Ages and early modern times had no doubt that each era, each time had its own understanding of the maternal phenomenon in general and maternal love in particular.
An attempt to understand what were the mechanisms of development of relations between children and parents in the pre-industrial, “pre-Enlightenment” era was made by researchers in the history of mentalities. Most of them easily agreed that maternal love in the Middle Ages was associated with care (for the sick, the poor) and came down to the ability to socialize one’s child in such a way that it would be sufficiently educated and “prepared, for example, for a monastic career,” where the ability showing care similar to a mother's could become a form of human self-realization. Arguing with F. Aries, the researchers insisted that maternal love certainly existed in the pre-industrial period, but the description of the forms of its expression made us see it as a biological instinct rather than a socially and culturally conditioned phenomenon. In this sense, F. Heyer’s work on the history of “femininity” in the late Middle Ages turned out to be a worthy exception to the rule. The author’s task was to study the changing ideas about the “ideal mother” under the influence of the Reformation, the very mechanism for developing such a traditional and persistent belief as the recognition of raising children - in the words of Martin Luther - “the first profession for women.
Researchers of the New Age (modernists), meanwhile, posed somewhat different questions, in particular, they explored the sources of the emergence of a special ideologeme of “maternalism” (the special value of motherhood, the recognition of which should be cultivated in the name of the improvement and reproduction of a race, class, social group - a phenomenon in the middle - the end of the 19th century in Europe, preceding the debate about eugenics), they sought to determine the originality and components of various manifestations of “spiritual motherhood”, that is, to find analogues of maternal relations in politics and the state system, to study the first forms of women’s associations and unions aimed at “protecting motherhood” "(for example, in Germany it was the "Bunds fur Mutterschutz" of the second half of the 19th century, which became part of the women's movement).
Thus, researchers were faced with the task of studying motherhood from a historical and psychological point of view - from the point of view of the peculiarities of its perception by different social strata, at different time periods of the past and present. The so-called linguistic turn, which marked the development of a number of humanities in the mid-s. (a sharp increase in attention to terminology and ways of expressing feelings, emotions, events), contributed greatly to an in-depth analysis of maternal discourse in different historical eras, among different peoples, to reflection on the content of concepts, rather than to the collection of a mass of facts. Feminism, the socio-psychological direction in history and social constructivism agreed in defining the main aspect in motherhood of bygone eras as the “aspect of service” (to the spouse, to society). Following the first studies of “sensitive history” written by the French, other countries appeared with their own “histories of feelings”, including those analyzing the features of women’s worldview. Let us especially note among them “The Culture of Sensibility” by J. Barker-Benfield.
Medievalists and, in general, researchers of the pre-industrial period, an era when the home was the most important living space for a person, and “motherhood, unlike fatherhood, gave a woman social significance and value” had their say. In a certain sense, it was precisely the importance of a woman as a mother, her ability to become one, which, according to a number of American feminists, was one of the reasons for the rapid development of feminophobic, sexist formulations in the system of written and common law.
Medievalists with clearly expressed feminist views easily linked the history of medieval motherhood with the history of sexuality, since such an interpretation naturally suggested itself when reading medieval penitentials (collections of punishments for sins). They are also in the latest literature of the late 1920s. prove that men - the authors of laws and compilers of chronicles in the early Middle Ages diligently “covered up” the importance of motherhood and feeding a child, since they themselves could not perform such functions, and therefore did not highly value their importance. Some of the researchers of motherhood of the pre-industrial era specifically emphasized that only through motherhood and everything associated with it, women of that time lost the status of “victims” and could (through self-realization) feel their own “freedom” and “significance”.
At the same time, researchers of medieval culture and religious anthropology have revealed that the concept of “proper marriage” (in particular, the idea of ​​a “good” and “bad” wife) and the concept of “motherhood” (including ideas of “bad” and “ good" mother) developed simultaneously and, one might say, "went hand in hand." The hypothesis of the medievalists was that awareness of the value of maternal love and maternal education accompanied the entire process of revaluation of values ​​in the concept of family and women in Christianity. The early Middle Ages, they believed, were characterized by a high appreciation of virginity and childlessness, and asceticism in everything, including marital relations. Later, priests and preachers were forced to admit the “dead end” of this path of educating parishioners. Attempts to canonize childless couples, according to, for example, German researchers of the “history of women,” did not meet with understanding among parishioners and, on the contrary, holidays and the saints associated with them, whose lives were marked by parental love and affection, enjoyed special love. Thus, society’s interest in its numerical increase, multiplied by the efforts of preachers who slightly “tweaked” their original concept, became the reason for a change in the perception of motherhood.
An analysis of medieval hagiography has led a number of researchers to the conclusion that from a certain time (in the so-called “high Middle Ages”), care for children began to be constantly present in the text of sermons and took the form of formulated theses about the maternal “duty” and “responsibilities” of women mothers. The special veneration of saints, whose lives were both similar and not similar to the lives of ordinary people, the rapid spread of the cult of the Madonna and her mother, St. Anne, recorded at this time, changed the attitude towards motherhood within the Christian concept. Praising and “celebrating” mothers and motherhood became a “general concept” of Catholic preachers in Europe (if we discard regional variations) by the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th centuries (as A. Blamyers pointed out), which had the reverse side of marginalization and deprivation of those who could not be mothers.
Medievalists, who chose the late Middle Ages as their area of ​​analytical work, showed that it was in the texts of this period that images of mothers with many children appeared, that it was in the fashion of the “high Middle Ages” - as iconography also reflected - that dresses that allowed one to freely bear a child during pregnancy became typical. At the same time, in the penitentiary texts, as colleagues, for example, K. Opitz, noted, prohibitions appeared on the use of any contraceptives and attempts to regulate the number of births (which was absent in the early texts). A very remarkable side of “women’s history” in the Middle Ages, as the Israeli researcher S. Shahar believed, was the weak representation of the maternal theme in the monuments of urban literature: it contained a whole palette of images of “marriage partners”, “good” and “evil” wives and extremely mothers were rare.
A characteristic feature of the medieval concept of motherhood (based, no doubt, on the general Christian concept of family) was, as noted by a number of European researchers, the “admission” of the mother only to a small child, an “infant”. Beginning in years, a child, and especially a teenager, should have, according to the findings of researchers, been raised by his father. Taking into account social stratification when analyzing the topic we are considering led to the conclusion that in ancient times, not everyone responded to the “call” of clergy to pay more attention to children, but rather to a greater extent the privileged strata, where maternal responsibilities were perhaps the main ones for women. On the contrary, in an unprivileged environment, motherhood and the experiences associated with it supposedly played a secondary (to say the least) role.
The reflections of “modernist” researchers (that is, those who studied the early modern era in Europe in the 16th - 17th centuries) largely developed the hypotheses of medievalists. From their point of view, the concept of motherhood in modern times was formed not so much by church postulates, but (and to a greater extent!) by secular narrative literature, including didactic properties, and by educated mothers - as, say, the English literary critic K. Moore emphasized - They were brought up at this time not only by the power of their own example, but also by literary example. K. Moore in England, and E. Daunzeroth in Germany (fifteen years before K. Moore's publication) analyzed pedagogical books of the pre-Enlightenment era, showing how, on their basis, stereotypes of perceiving a woman primarily as a future or accomplished mother were formed and reproduced. To the same conclusions - but on the basis of studying the everyday life of different European peoples in the early modern period, their customs and beliefs, including those related to the circumstances of conception, the development of a child in the womb, etc. - came the English researcher O. Houghton, who decisively rejected, by the way, the hypotheses of F. Aries and his followers about the “discovery” of childhood (and, consequently, motherhood as one of the manifestations of the “century of affected individualism,” that is, the 18th century).
Researchers and, especially, researchers of the phenomenon of motherhood, working in the last decade of the 20th century, made a number of its aspects that, it would seem, were known to previous historiography, but were not scientifically articulated, become topical. For example, researchers of various forms of socio-political activity of women and the women's movement of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. drew attention to the use by feminists of the last century of the idea of ​​“spiritual motherhood” as an element of “sisterhood” between like-minded women.
New problems posed in the historical literature of the 1980s include the identification of the second important milestone (after the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries) in the European history of motherhood. According to many, it began in the 1980s, when the term “motherhood” came into use in “European public discourse,” when teachers, social workers, and hygienists started talking about it in all countries, when “motherhood ceased to be just a natural attribute women, but has become a social problem."
The very concept of motherhood in recent years has gotten rid of the dichotomy imposed by centuries - the classification of all women with children into the categories of either a “bad” or “good” mother, and these categories, “models” and samples have been analyzed in relation to different eras and cultures (here a special role belongs to the English researcher E. Ross). For modernists, in this sense, studies of the concept of the “moral mother”, proposed to English-speaking society in the Victorian era, turned out to be very useful: according to it, a “real”, “moral” mother had to consciously refuse to work outside the family and to participate in social life for the sake of children .
Historians who studied non-elite strata of society (the poor, workers) contributed to the study of ideas about maternal love and responsibility in these social strata. These researchers (E. Riley, E. Ross, K. Canning) used a completely different range of sources (the press, reports of factory and medical inspectors, etc.) - after all, among the poor there were many illiterate people, and representatives of these social classes did not have enough time , nor the strength to describe my life for posterity. It is not surprising that almost all the researchers who took up such topics were specialists in modern history. The rapid development in recent years of the so-called “oral history” played a saving role for them, which made it possible to compensate for the shortcomings of “recorded” history: researchers who used historical and ethnological methods of work (participant observation, direct participation) achieved convincing results, reconstructing the everyday life of working-class women half a century or more ago.
Finally, a special topic within the framework of the general problem was the history of motherhood in an immigrant environment, its characteristics and difficulties, which are sometimes incomprehensible to permanent residents of the country, the problems of ensuring the rights of mothers in extreme conditions (war, post-war devastation). It sounded very poignant in the works of the 1980s. and the theme of the everyday life of mothers in post-war Western European society, directly addressing the issue of “neo-maternalism” (human losses forced most countries to promote images of large, happy mothers), and it is not surprising that half a century later there was a need to analyze the influence of this ideological concept on the life of “simple " person.
Summing up some of the results of the review of foreign publications on the “history of motherhood,” it is probably worth emphasizing that only a small part of the vast sea of ​​literature on this topic is considered here. And first of all - monographic studies. Articles on issues of interest to us, published in such journals as "Gender and History", "Journal of Family History", "Journal of Interdisciplinary History", not to mention the world-famous French "Annals" and German "History and Society", number in the dozens , if not hundreds.
There are far fewer works on the history of Russian motherhood. Perhaps the only book where the theme of motherhood turned out to be “cross-cutting” and passed through all eras, as it were, is the monographic work of J. Hubbs, which is quite pretentious both in terms of the choice and interpretation of sources (which was repeatedly noted in reviews of this book) . The research of this American author persistently emphasized Berdyaev’s idea of ​​the “eternally feminine” in the Russian character and from this point of view (super-anti-feminist!) approached the characterization of certain aspects of elements of family relations typical for Russia, including, for example, “special strength "Mother-son love.
Other works by foreign specialists, on the contrary, were distinguished by their scrupulous elaboration of small and minute details of their chosen topics and high professionalism, but - as a rule - they concerned only a certain time period. Thus, speaking about the works of European and American medievalists, it is difficult to ignore the analytical studies of the American historian working with Russian penance books, editor-in-chief of the Russian Review magazine Eva Levina. The main topic of this researcher for a long time was the history of sexuality in the countries of the Orthodox faith, so she touched upon the “maternal theme” precisely in the aspect of the analysis of Old Slavonic church texts, in which motherhood was considered as the main antithesis of the sexual affectation of women. Approximately the same aspects of medieval motherhood were considered by her colleague and compatriot I. Tire, who has been studying - for several years now - the peculiarities of the life and spiritual life of Moscow queens. Very indirectly, the problems of motherhood were also touched upon by those who set the task of studying the status of the child in Ancient Rus' (M. Sheftel, A. Plakans).
Somewhat more research has been written - as is typical for world historiography in general - on the history of motherhood and, more broadly, parenthood in the 19th century. The most actively studied here were problems related to the history of medicine and obstetrics, as well as the history of street, unwanted, abandoned children. The most fundamental works on the latter issue - and, by the way, those that summarized the greatest amount of material on motherhood itself (albeit only on one of its aspects) - were written by D. Rensel, whose monograph “Mothers of Poverty” was a kind of “discovery of the topic” of motherhood for Russian studies . Another social pole is the relationship between mothers and children in the privileged classes of the 18th-19th centuries. - was reflected in the articles and book of J. Tovrov about the noble families of early industrial Russia.
The main sources of this American researcher were the memoirs and diaries of noblewomen of the Catherine, Pavlovian and Alexander eras, as well as literary works. The topic of the changed content of maternal education - according to the above sources - in - s. has become one of the favorite topics of foreign Slavists, both literary scholars and historians.
Finally, the pre-revolutionary period in the history of Russian motherhood, which turned out to be the least studied in the works of foreign specialists, is currently represented by single articles by A. Lindenmeir and B. Madison on the protection of the rights of working mothers and the significance in this sense of the city’s workers’ insurance law.
On the contrary, the Soviet period has always attracted the attention of foreign historians, sociologists and literary scholars. Suffice it to recall that even before the war and in the first post-war years, articles and monographs were published, the authors of which tried to understand and evaluate the uniqueness of the “Bolshevik experiment,” including in the field of family life. In this regard, it is gratifying to note E. Wood’s study “Baba and Comrade,” which was published quite recently. Although the book as a whole is devoted rather to political history, there is also a section about everyday life in the post-revolutionary years and gender transformations of the late 1980s and early 2000s. The researcher managed to treat legal documents from the times of the Civil War without irony, scrupulously analyze the works of prominent figures of the Bolshevik Party who addressed the topic of motherhood and considered this women's duty “incomparable” with the revolutionary duty, “individual rights” with the question of “state expediency.”
Most often, motherhood (more precisely, the question of changing attitudes towards it) interested foreign authors precisely as part of the problem of “women's liberation”, the notorious “solution to the women's issue in the USSR”. Particular attention in this sense was drawn to the city’s notorious law that banned abortion, and in general to Soviet legislation of the Stalin era, the “usability” and applicability of its articles to the everyday life of Soviet people of the pre-war and immediate post-war era. The use of “oral history” materials played a significant role in such studies: it was from the end of the ’s, and especially in the ’s, that foreign sociologists and historians had the opportunity to collect “field material”, oral interviews of Soviet women and build on the basis of such sources of research of a new type.
To a certain extent, a tribute to the fashion for psychoanalytic studies of childhood was a number of publications devoted to the “history of childhood” in Russia in the 20th century, the authors of which also addressed some aspects of mother-child relationships. A common feature of such studies was their obvious positivism, the absence of attempts to connect the collected historical facts with the latest concepts. Overcoming this shortcoming is a feature of the last decade. In addition, the lifting of prohibitions on topics previously discussed orally, but rarely considered scientifically, brought to the forefront researchers who began a comparative study of the life of people in totalitarian states. “Expanded” in a gender aspect, this topic was heard, for example, in articles whose authors compared the status of women and mothers in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.
Thus, an analysis of the foreign historiography of motherhood - both Russian and European - leaves no doubt that this topic is multifaceted, interdisciplinary and of interest to scientists from a variety of humanities specialties. However, not only for them.
=====================
Chief Researcher, Head of the Sector for Ethnic and Gender Studies, President of the Russian Association of Women's History Researchers, Head of the Russian National Committee in the International Federation of Women's History Researchers, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor

Scientific interests:
theory and methodology of gender studies, ethnology of the Russian family, gender, sexuality, history of the women's movement in Russia, history of Russian traditional life and everyday life, historiography. Having graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University in 1981 and graduate school at the Institute of Ethnography (now the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences), with Since 1987 he has been working at the institute.

PhD thesis:
“The position of women in the family and society of Ancient Rus'” was defended in 1985. Doctoral dissertation: - “Woman in the Russian family: the dynamics of sociocultural changes in the 10th - 19th centuries.” in 1997

Since 2001 - Professor at the Department of Russian History (07.00.02)

The main result of the research work Pushkareva N.L. - recognition of the direction of gender studies and women's history (historical feminology) in domestic humanities. Most of those written by Pushkareva N.L. books and articles are devoted to the history of women in Russia and Europe: Women of Ancient Rus' (1989, 21 pp.), Women of Russia and Europe on the threshold of the New Age (1996, 18 pp.), The private life of women in pre-industrial Russia. (X - early XIX century) (1997, 22 pp.), Russian woman: history and modernity (2002, 33.5 pp.), Gender theory and historical knowledge (2007, 21 pp.) The Association of American Slavists book by Pushkareva N.L. Women in Russian History from the 10th to the 20th Century (New York, 1997, 2nd ed. - 1998, 20 pp.) is recommended as a textbook in US universities.

Works by N.L. Pushkareva have a high citation index among historians, sociologists, psychologists, and cultural experts. Source research and publishing work by Pushkareva N.L. presents a 2-volume edition “And these are evil sins... (X - early XX century)” (1999-2004, in 2 volumes, 4 issues, 169 pp.). Information and analytical database: (1) Property rights of Russian women of the 16th century. (based on the processing of over 12,000 private acts, 1999) (2) Study of the history of Russian women 1800-2000 (7500 bibliographic items, 2005).

In 1989, at the XVII International Congress of Historical Sciences in Madrid, Pushkareva N.L. was elected to the International Association of Women's History Researchers (IFIZHI) as a permanent representative - first from the USSR (now from Russia). Since 1997, she has been an expert at a number of foreign foundations and programs, including the VI program of the European Union “Integration and Strengthening the European Scientific Area (Brussels, 2002-2006), the Institute of Social and Gender Policy at the Open Society Foundation, the K. and J. Foundation. MacArthur, Canadian Foundation for Gender Equality. Reading a course of lectures “Fundamentals of Gender Theory for Historians,” Pushkareva N.L. She taught at universities in the Russian Federation (in Tambov, Ivanovo, Tomsk, Kostroma, etc.), the CIS (in Kharkov, Minsk), as well as foreign ones (in Germany, France, the USA, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Hungary). Supervises graduate students and doctoral students.

N.L. Pushkareva is the editor-in-chief of the electronic journal “Social History” (a Russian periodical registered in the Russian Science Citation Index). She is also a member of the editorial boards of such well-known peer-reviewed journals as “Woman in Russian Society”, “Historical Psychology and Sociology of History”, and the international yearbook “Aspasia. Yearbook of gender history" (Amsterdam), the magazine "Bulgarian Ethnology" (Sofia), the interdisciplinary yearbook "Gender Studies" (St. Petersburg), the anthology of gender history "Adam and Eve" (Moscow), the expert council of the editors of the book series "Gender Studies" publishing house "Aletheia", is on the editorial boards and editorial boards of several regional university Bulletins.

N.L. Pushkareva is a member of the Interuniversity Scientific Council “Feminology and Gender Studies” from the first days of its creation. In 1996-1999 - Member of the Scientific Council of the Moscow Center for Gender Studies, in 1997-2009 - Director of educational and scientific programs, co-organizer of Russian Summer Schools on Women's and Gender Studies. Member of the expert councils of the C. and J. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Foundation (Soros Foundation), the Canadian Foundation for Gender Equality, the editorial and publishing council of the Institute for Social and Gender Policy at the OLF.

In 2017, N.L. Pushkareva was awarded by the American Association of Women in Slavic and East European Studies for her many years of dedicated work in creating a scientific school in the field of women's and gender studies.

In 2018, the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations of Russia awarded her a diploma “for impeccable work and high achievements in professional activities.”

Since 2002 N.L. Pushkareva heads the Russian Association of Women's History Researchers (RAIZHI, www.rarwh.ru) - a non-profit organization that unites everyone interested in the social role of sex and gender and is part of the International Federation of Women's History Researchers (IFRWH). RAIZHI holds regular conferences and brings together over 400 researchers of women's and gender history in more than 50 cities of the Russian Federation. N.L. Pushkareva is the author of more than 530 scientific and over 150 popular science publications, including 11 monographs and two dozen collections of scientific articles, in which she acted as a compiler, responsible. editor, author of forewords. More than two hundred works by N.L. Pushkareva have been published in publications or are publications indexed by the RSCI, the number of citations is over 6000. Hirsch index - 41

Monographs and collections of articles: 



1. Women of Ancient Rus'. M.: “Mysl”, 1989.

2. Russians: ethnoterritory, settlement, numbers, historical destinies (XII-XX centuries). M.: IEA RAS, 1995 (co-authored with V.A. Alexandrov and I.V. Vlasova) 2nd edition: M.: IEA RAS, 1998.

3. Women of Russia and Europe on the threshold of the New Age. M.: IEA RAS, 1996.