This thesis investigates the formation of power structures in a revolutionary setting. It takes as a case study the central Siberian city of Krasnoiarsk, in which a powerful Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies emerged during the period March-October 1917. The Krasnoiarsk Soviet was an elective council established during the overthrow of Tsarist authorities. Throughout 1917, it became a vital component of an emerging local and regional power structure, assuming growing responsibility for a number of core state tasks. As well as providing a new empirical case study to English-language literature on 1917, the thesis employs a nuanced analytical approach which challenges existing conceptualisations of state power in revolution and the role played by local soviets. State power in revolutionary Russia has often been viewed as something to be contested between different political groupings and organisations seeking to assert their own outright control. This view is captured neatly by the formulation of “dual power”, in which soviets and Provisional Government organisations constructed alternative power bases in an attempt to wield outright control. Accordingly, the soviets’ growing political strength indicated an ability to marginalise other groups and organisations seeking to wield power. By contrast, this thesis does not seek to explain how power in revolutionary Krasnoiarsk was “captured” or otherwise controlled by the Soviet alone. Instead, it applies a critical interpretation of state power proposed by Bob Jessop and other theorists, who view the state as a site of interaction and negotiation between multiple autonomous organisations and social actors, all of which have a stake in the way it operates in practice. It focuses on the emergence of a “soviet power” writ small, in which the Krasnoiarsk Soviet became an authoritative organisation within a broader constellation of revolutionary actors. Without denying the Soviet’s centrality within this power structure, the thesis does not explain its role simply as the monopolisation of authority over other would-be contenders. Rather, it sees the Soviet’s importance in its ability to establish itself as a focal point for interactions between multiple actors which, collectively, shaped state power at a local and regional level. It considers how the forms and practices of revolutionary power developed through these interactions and how these interactions in turn transformed the roles of actors and organisations engaging them. In order to unpick the complex and dynamic processes of revolutionary power, the thesis employs three core methodological concepts: institutions, mobilisation, and ideology. It makes several important and original arguments. Firstly, it emphasises the autonomy of social actors which supported the Soviet and engaged in its politics, demonstrating the extent to which they were able to shape its political functions and structures according to their own concerns. Secondly, it reveals the importance of skilled administrative personnel to Soviet work, highlighting the invaluable practical roles they played in the regulation of provisions and their ability to influence Soviet policy measures on this issue. Thirdly, it demonstrates the close cooperation between the Soviet and other local governmental and administrative bodies, including the city Duma and provisions regulatory organisations, which remained vital to fulfilling state functions throughout 1917. Finally, it discusses how the Soviet and socialist activists challenged established power relationships between Krasnoiarsk, as a locality, and all-Russian state authorities, revealing the growing importance they attached to securing greater local autonomy in revolution and the changing ways local actors viewed their role in wider all-Russian politics.

Plurale Weltinterpretationen praktizieren wir täglich, meist ohne uns darüber bewusst zu sein. Zustande kommen sie durch die gleichzeitige und gleichwertige Existenz verschiedener Modelle der Weltinterpretation. Sie sind Produkte menschlicher Schöpferkraft und stehen als parallele Realitäten einander ergänzend und einander widersprechend nebeneinander. Das Buch führt am Beispiel der Tyva Südsibiriens in zwei Modelle der Weltinterpretation und in die Praxis des Umgangs mit ihnen ein. Es zeigt, wie einzelne lokale Akteure zwei von mehreren Modellen flexibel zum Einsatz bringen, um Situationen zu deuten und in ihnen zu handeln. Es wird deutlich, welchen Regeln die Tyva dabei folgen, welche Gründe sie leiten und welche Folgen sie zu tragen haben. Das Ergebnis ist ein Bild zeitgenössischer Kultur, das der gegenwärtig gegebenen Flexibilität und Pluralität des menschlichen Deutens, Handelns und Verhaltens gerecht wird. / Plural World Interpretations are part of our everyday lives, even if we are not aware of the fact. They result from the simultaneous existence of different but equal models for interpreting the world we live in. These models are the product of human constructivity and co-exist as parallel realities, complementing and contradicting each other. Based on fieldwork among the Tyva of southern Siberia, the book discusses the practice of dealing with this multiplicity of world interpretations and shows how individual actors oscillate flexibly between two of many possible models for interpreting specific situations and act on them. The rules Tyvans apply in varying contexts, the reasons behind their choices and the consequences they have to deal with, are analysed. The result is an account of contemporary culture that explores the flexibility and plurality of human interpretation, action and behaviour. / Мы используем множественные интерпретации мира (нем. plurale Weltinterpretationen) ежедневно и, в большинстве случаев, неосознанно. Осуществляется это за счёт одновременного и равноценного сосуществования различных моделей мировоззрения. Они являются продуктом творческой деятельностей человека и сосуществуют в качестве параллельных реальностей, дополняя и, одновременно, противореча друг другу. На примере тувинцев Южной Сибири данная книга знакомит с двумя моделями мировоззрения, а также с практикой их применения. Показывается, как локальные акторы гибко применяют две из существующего множества моделей: и для того, чтобы действовать в складывающихся ситуациях, и чтобы толковать их. Станет понятным, каким правилам при этом следуют тувинцы, какими мотивами руководствуются и какие это имеет последствия. Результатом явится картина современной культуры, которая будет отвечать имеющимся на данный момент запросам гибкости и многообразия в мировоззрении, действиях и поведении человека.