This thesis intends to show that pogroms in the reign of Alexander III were neither encouraged nor instigated by the government. While other historians have demonstrated why the government could not have been involved in a pogrom policy, a thesis to which the author adds new primary source materials, it is possible to go one step further with new information emerging on alternative origins and reasons for the pogroms. It is argued that there was independent anti-Jewish action among the peasantry that clearly shows their capability for self-motivation and organisation. Chapters 1 and 2 review the literature on the Russian peasantry, the nature of the autocracy, the tensions within Russian society and the role of the Jewish population within the Russian Empire until the 1880s. These are the areas on which the crux of the thesis rests. Chapter 3 re-examines the period 1881-1894 in more detail in an effort to understand more clearly Jewish and Russian social perceptions of the pogroms, and how this has led to misconceptions among historians. Chapter 4 looks more closely at the government policy on the Jewish Question, using new data that allows research to take into account the real feelings and concerns that were expressed at the highest levels of government. Chapter 5 considers the same unofficial and frank source of documentation but at lower levels, i. e. police and local officials. From these police reports, comes the factual evidence of the existence of peasant leadership, organisation and movements against authority, and more specifically against Jews. Chapter 6 concludes that by 1881, the autocracy did not control or understand Russian or Jewish society, and it was during the next thirteen years that this became evident. The re-evaluation of available data only serves to show that the pogroms were a clear illustration of this fact.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Minnesota, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 225-245) Also available on the World Wide Web as a PDF file.

The subject of this thesis is the short story "Карл-Янкель" ("Karl-Yankel") by Russian-Jewish writer Isaac Babel (1894‒1940), published in 1931. The story depicts a trial following the cir-cumcision of a boy against his parents’ will, and thus directly addresses issues of high relevance at the time, namely the transformations of religious life in the early years of the Soviet Union. Firstly, I have analyzed the references to Jewish culture that appear in the story. Further on, drawing on research by other scholars, I have examined the shift of the traditional Jew into a Soviet Jew—a highly secular subject deeply involved in the socialist society and far removed from the traditions of the Pale of Settlement. Lastly, I have studied the narrator’s perspective, which, being far from objective, plays a major role in portraying the trial and is of key im-portance for understanding the transformation of Jewish life that occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. At the end of the story, the narrator deprives the reader of the verdict and gives in-stead his attention to the circumcised boy. I argue that he thus focused on the future rather than on the conflict between tradition and secularism.

The subject of this thesis is the short story "Карл-Янкель" ("Karl-Yankel") by Russian-Jewish writer Isaac Babel (1894‒1940), published in 1931. The story depicts a trial following the cir-cumcision of a boy against his parents’ will, and thus directly addresses issues of high relevance at the time, namely the transformations of religious life in the early years of the Soviet Union. Firstly, I have analyzed the references to Jewish culture that appear in the story. Further on, drawing on research by other scholars, I have examined the shift of the traditional Jew into a Soviet Jew—a highly secular subject deeply involved in the socialist society and far removed from the traditions of the Pale of Settlement. Lastly, I have studied the narrator’s perspective, which, being far from objective, plays a major role in portraying the trial and is of key im-portance for understanding the transformation of Jewish life that occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. At the end of the story, the narrator deprives the reader of the verdict and gives in-stead his attention to the circumcised boy. I argue that he thus focused on the future rather than on the conflict between tradition and secularism. / <p>historia</p>

No description available.

Russian Jews who left the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and its Successor States after 1989 are considered as one of the best qualified migrants group worldwide. In the preferred countries of destination (Israel, the United States and Germany) they are well-known for cultural self-assertion, strong social upward mobility and manifold forms of self organisation and empowerment. Using Suzanne Kellers sociological model of “Strategic Elites”, it easily becomes clear that a huge share of the Russian Jewish Immigrants in Germany and Israel are part of various elites due to their qualification and high positions in the FSU – first of all professional, cultural and intellectual elites (“Intelligentsija”). The study aimed to find out to what extent developments of cultural self-assertion, of local and transnational networking and of ethno-cultural empowerment are supported or even initiated by the immigrated (Russian Jewish) Elites. The empirical basis for this study have been 35 half-structured expert interviews with Russian Jews in both countries (Israel, Germany) – most of them scholars, artists, writers, journalists/publicists, teachers, engineers, social workers, students and politicians. The qualitative analysis of the interview material in Israel and Germany revealed that there are a lot of commonalities but also significant differences. It was obvious that almost all of the interview partners remained to be linked with Russian speaking networks and communities, irrespective of their success (or failure) in integration into the host societies. Many of them showed self-confidence with regard to the groups’ amazing professional resources (70% of the adults with academic degree), and the cultural, professional and political potential of the FSU immigrants was usually considered as equal to those of the host population(s). Thus, the immigrants’ interest in direct societal participation and social acceptance was accordingly high. Assimilation was no option. For the Russian Jewish “sense of community” in Israel and Germany, Russian Language, Arts and general Russian culture have remained of key importance. The Immigrants do not feel an insuperable contradiction when feeling “Russian” in cultural terms, “Jewish” in ethnical terms and “Israeli” / “German” in national terms – in that a typical case of additive identity shaping what is also significant for the Elites of these Immigrants. Tendencies of ethno-cultural self organisation – which do not necessarily hinder impressing individual careers in the new surroundings – are more noticeable in Israel. Thus, a part of the Russian Jewish Elites has responded to social exclusion, discrimination or blocking by local population (and by local elites) with intense efforts to build (Russian Jewish) Associations, Media, Educational Institutions and even Political Parties. All in all, the results of this study do very much contradict popular stereotypes of the Russian Jewish Immigrant as a pragmatic, passive “Homo Sovieticus”. Among the Interview Partners in this study, civil-societal commitment was not the exception but rather the rule. Traditional activities of the early, legendary Russian „Intelligentsija“ were marked by smooth transitions from arts, education and societal/political commitment. There seem to be certain continuities of this self-demand in some of the Russian Jewish groups in Israel. Though, nothing comparable could be drawn from the Interviews with the Immigrants in Germany. Thus, the myth and self-demand of Russian “Intelligentsija” is irrelevant for collective discourses among Russian Jews in Germany. / Russischsprachige Juden, die nach 1989 die Sowjetunion und ihre Nachfolgestaaten verlassen haben, zählen weltweit zu den bestqualifizierten Migranten. In ihren bevorzugten Zielländern (Israel, USA, Deutschland) zeichnen sie sich durch sichtbare Formen der kulturellen Selbstbehauptung, eine starke Aufstiegsmobilität und einen relativ hohen Grad der Selbstorganisation aus. Auf Grund des hohen Bildungsgrades und der dominierenden Berufsbilder konnte in Anlehnung an das Modell der „Strategic Elites“ von Suzanne Keller ein generell hoher Anteil an Eliten in der untersuchten Gruppe von Immigranten in Deutschland und Israel ausgemacht werden – v.a. professionelle, kulturelle und intellektuelle Eliten. Die Studie fragte danach, inwiefern Prozesse der kulturellen Selbstbehauptung, der lokalen und transnationalen Vernetzung und der ethno-kulturellen Selbstorganisation von den zugewanderten Eliten unterstützt oder sogar selbst befördert werden. Als empirische Grundlage dienten je 35 Experten-Interviews mit russisch-jüdischen Immigranten in beiden Ländern – dabei vorwiegend Wissenschaftler, Künstler, Schriftsteller, Publizisten/Journalisten, Lehrer, Ingenieure, Sozialarbeiter, Studenten und Politiker. Die qualitative Auswertung des Interviewmaterials in Deutschland und Israel ergab zahlreiche Gemeinsamkeiten, aber auch markante Unterschiede. Auffällig war, dass fast alle Interviewpartner mit russischsprachigen Netzwerken und Community-Strukturen gut verbunden blieben – unabhängig vom bisherigen Erfolg ihrer individuellen Integration. Fast durchweg waren sie sich ihrer überdurchschnittlichen beruflichen Kompetenzen (70% Akademiker) bewusst, die kulturellen, beruflichen und häufig auch politischen Ressourcen wurden mindestens als ebenbürtig zu jenen der Aufnahmegesellschaften betrachtet. Das Interesse an direkter gesellschaftlicher Partizipation und Akzeptanz war entsprechend hoch. Für das Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl der Immigranten in Israel und Deutschland bilden russische Sprache, Kunst und (Alltags-) Kultur nach wie vor eine Schlüssel-Rolle. Dabei entsteht für die meisten Immigranten kein zwingender Widerspruch, sich "russisch" im kulturellen, "jüdisch" im ethnischen und "israelisch" / "deutsch" im nationalen Sinne zu fühlen - insofern ein klassischer Fall von additiver Identitätsbildung, der auch die zugewanderten Eliten charakterisiert. Assimilation in die Mehrheitsgesellschaft ist keine Option. Tendenzen ethno-kultureller Selbstorganisation, die erfolgreiche individuelle Integrationsverläufe im neuen Umfeld keineswegs ausschließen, zeigten sich am intensivsten in Israel. So reagiert ein Teil der russisch-jüdischen Eliten auf allgemeine Ausgrenzungserfahrungen und/oder Schließungsprozesse der lokalen Eliten bewusst mit der Bildung eigener Vereine, Medien, Bildungseinrichtungen und sogar politischer Parteien. Insgesamt widersprechen die Ergebnisse der Studie dem weitverbreiteten Stereotyp vom russisch-jüdischen Migranten als eines pragmatisch-passiven „Homo Sovieticus“. Zivilgesellschaftliches Engagement war bei den untersuchten Eliten eher der Regelfall. Zu den Traditionen der frühen, legendären russischen „Intelligentsija“ gehörten fließende Übergänge zwischen Kunst, Bildung und gesellschaftspolitischem Engagement. Dies setzt sich in Israel in einigen Gruppierungen der russisch-jüdischen Immigranten nahtlos fort. Dagegen machten die Experten-Interviews in Deutschland deutlich, dass ein vergleichbarer „Intelligentsija“-Effekt hier nicht zu erwarten ist - und daher für kollektive Orientierungsprozesse der russischen Juden irrelevant bleibt.

This Master’s thesis explores Jewish masculinity and identity within early twentieth-century literature (1903-1925), using texts written by Jewish authors in late imperial Russia and the early Soviet Union. This was a period of change for Russia’s Jewish community, involving increased secularization and reform, massive pogroms such as in Kishinev in 1903, newfound leadership within the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions, and a rise in both Zionist and Revolutionary ideology. Subsequently, Jewish literary masculinity experienced a significant shift in characterization. Historically, a praised Jewish man had been portrayed as gentle, scholarly, and faithful, yet early twentieth century Jewish male literary figures were asked to be physically strong, hypermasculine, and secular. This thesis first uses H.N. Bialik’s “In the City of Slaughter” (1903) and Sholem Aleichem’s “Tevye Goes to Palestine” (1914) to introduce a concept of “Jewish shame,” or a sentiment that historical Jewish masculinity was insufficient for a contemporary Russian world. It then creates two models for these new men to follow. The Assimilatory Jew, seen in Isaac Babel’s Red Cavalry cycle (published throughout the 1920s), held that perpetual outsider Jewish men should imitate the behaviour of a secular whole in order to be accepted. The Jewish Superman is depicted in Vladimir Jabotinsky’s “In Memory of Herzl” (1904) and Ilya Selvinsky’s “Bar Kokhba” (1920), and argues that masculine glory is entirely compatible with a proud Jewish identity, without an external standard needed. Judith Butler’s theories on gender performativity are used to analyze these diverse works, published in Hebrew, Yiddish, and Russian by authors of varying political alignments, to establish commonalities among these literary canons and plot a new spectrum of desired identities for Jewish men. / Graduate / 2020-04-10