The Emancipation Of Women In Russia

Chapter 1-Terrorism and 'Feminism': The movement before the 1905 Revolution. Linda Edmondson gives a concise overview of the period that will be covered in this study (c.1860-1917). The overview goes as such: the development of radical political movements: terrorism, the assassination of the tsar, followed by an intense political reaction. There was also a growing social and political crisis and intensifying poor international relations which led to World War I and the fall of the tsar in February 1917. This section will examine the actions that influenced the women's movement between the emancipation of the serfs and the 1905 revolution. Before examining the movement itself, one must ask why it originated. In Figner's memoirs, she states that 'the government had left all classes without political rights while oppressing the people economically.police measures deprived the people of the right of movement; they had no right of petition and last of all, the entire life of the nation was at every point subjected to the arbitrary and unrestrained administration'. This shows that Russian society in the nineteenth century was heavily oppressed which links in with the idea that social revolution was brewing and opened the way for a revolution of women's rights. Up until the mid-nineteenth century, women had been absent from politics. One could even go as far as to argue, as Stites has suggested, that there was no 'real' women's movement in Russia until 1905. However, there had clearly been increasing interest in some form of women's emancipation for at least fifty years prior to the 1905 Revolution and the next section will discuss why this became possible around this time. Origins of the movement The 'women's movement' originated around the 1860s, although there have been recent arguments that it existed long before that. Linda Edmondson states that it was in the 'late 1850s and 1860s when politics first became a public concern, the moment when the woman question suddenly became fashionable and the women's movement began to take shape'. The use of 'suddenly' here indicates that while there may have been a movement prior to the 1860s, it was not until this period that it became visible in the public eye. Recent research has thrown into doubt when the movement itself actually developed. Women in Russia allegedly developed a cultural identity in the 1820s. This raises issues of whether or not women have deliberately been overlooked or the previous generation of highly educated and creative women may have been hugely underestimated. Taking this point into consideration, one might argue that the women of the 1820s provided the inspiration for the 'pioneers' of the movement in the 1860s and have perhaps unjustly been overlooked and there has been a failure to acknowledge the achievements made by earlier generations of women in what could be described as highly unfavourable political circumstances. This stresses the argument that a better political foregrounding led to this 'sudden' emergence of the women's movement. This perhaps strengthens the notion that the correlation between the women's movement and the changing political and social circumstances is far greater than has previously been thought. Anna Hillyar has tried to define the early stages of the movement by claiming that 'the history of the radical movement in the 1870s and 1880s is the history of the early progress in socialist theory and its practical application in the country'. Given the importance of socialism in the later stages of the women's movement, this could lead to a suggestion that the 1870s and 1880s provided a foreground for the movement to elevate under more favourable circumstances, e.g. a general social revolution, at the turn of the twentieth century. The movement transformed through different stages, according to Barbara Engel. 'The radical activists progressed from the woman question to broader social issues as they tried to understand the poverty of the peasantry and urban workers'. Anna Hillyar offers an explanation as to why the numbers of women participating in the radical movement in the 1860s were low: put simply, Russia was still in the midst of being a feudal, patriarchal country, making it difficult for women to enter the forefront of political issues. One could of course argue that a lack of education and interest was also part of this absence of women in the revolutionary movement, although again, this lack of educational opportunities and political awareness could be attributed to the system of patriarchy. Another factor which hindered the progression of the women's movement was that even once female radicals had broken free of the patriarchal authority of their own families, they struggled to be taken seriously by the masses they tried to reach, although this could be explained by the fact that many of the early radicals were from the upper classes, and there was a deep mistrust of the bourgeoisie by the peasants and working classes who were the 'masses' the female radicals were trying to reach. The 'going to the people' movement, to be discussed in detail later, failed to reach the lower-classes due to 'the general apathy and occasional hostility of the female workers towards the revolutionaries, which reinforced stereotypes of women and indicated that propaganda should be aimed at neutralising conservative influences rather than drawing women to the labour movement as workers in their own right'. How do we define 'Feminism'? One of the issues historians have faced in documenting this period is the use of the word 'feminism'. According to Karen Offen, activists themselves tended to avoid using the term until the end of the nineteenth century, and even further beyond that. 'It has become customary to treat 19th century feminism as a manifestation of the tendency towards individualism, the epitome of liberal ideas, totally at odds with the collectivism of later socialist women's movements'. Olga Shnyrova has suggested that the women's movement, which was launched after the 1905 Revolution, was known as 'the women's liberation movement', but was not referred to as a feminist movement. Even the 'feminists' themselves were unclear on their definition. Edmondson argues that they 'clumsily described themselves as activists of the women's movement'. Ruthchild defines feminism as both a 'movement and a discourse aimed at challenging male hegemony in a variety of historical and cultural settings'. In 'Constructing Global Feminism', the term is defined as 'identifying a shared principle committed to challenging gender hierarchy that defines activist networks mobilised around specific issues'. So here we can see the difficulties in pinning down a single definition of feminism. The general idea of it being centred around challenging gender hierarchies remains, but the specificities of its definition are difficult to hold down. Feminism in Russia was seen as a bourgeois movement which means that working classes often saw the movement as irrelevant to their causes. The importance of education 'It was through their association in colleges or institutes that many female revolutionaries came to see the need to change the society they lived in'. In order to examine the movement before the 1905 Revolution, it is necessary to think about why the movement developed around the 1860s. As discussed, the movement is generally thought to have initiated from the reforms that were introduced by liberal Tsar, Alexander II. Yet these reforms did not explicitly offer benefits to Russian women. They provided an opportunity. The 1860s allowed women to gain a previously unobtainable education. For the first time, they were allowed access into lecture halls, and study circles began to emerge. Engel claims that the women who entered these lecture halls 'enjoyed the support of many men-mostly professors and students who welcomed them and treated them with respect.' Education was 'indispensable if women were to attain economic independence and intellectual equality with men. it was the passion for education that motivated the women of the 1860s and brought them together'. At this early stage in the movement, it seems clear that the goal was not female liberation or emancipation, but the right to education. 'The first women's organisations found in Russia in the middle of the nineteenth century had no political claims and were aimed exclusively at women's right to equal education and professional careers'. Given that women had very little rights in Russia, an education was the start of breaking free from patriarchal authority. 'By seeking an education, the women challenged traditional notions of women's role in the family and society. Enrolling in higher education was their first act of rebellion'. While education brought the women together, it cannot be said that there was a clearly defined movement at this stage. I will later argue that there was perhaps never a clearly defined movement throughout the sixty years of this history. For now the focus is on the early stages of the movement. The revolutionaries knew they wanted to claim rights to an education, but that was about all they knew. Vera Figner, herself a leading revolutionary, points out that 'the comrades who like myself had heard the call of revolutionary activity formed a disorganised and undisciplined group, lacking in experience with no plan of action'. The government were extremely wary, however, of awarding women the opportunity to study. 'The tsarist government made what officials saw as an obvious connection between women's desire for university education and a revolutionary world view'. Women were only briefly permitted into education before measures introduced in 1863 forced them out of universities. Here the women could have easily given up on their desire to be educated. But it is testament to their determination that they simply went elsewhere, for example to Western Europe, to continue their search for education. This in itself was limiting and highlights that at this stage it was only the women of the higher classes who were involved in the movement because it was often only the most financially secure who were able to travel abroad to find an education. Koblitz is particularly full of praise for the attitude of these women who were so desperate for an education. 'They came from one of the Most reactionary countries in Europe and approached the European educational establishment with determination'. In Figner's memoirs, she reveals how the 'Zurich experience fostered the transformation of a serious female student into a committed revolutionary, but also indicate that the desire to serve society, through medical education, was the primary motivation of the majority of Russian women who had migrated to Zurich'. The increased desire for an education arose from industrialisation finally hitting Russia meaning that employment opportunities for women with an education continued to increase, although it must be stressed that women's 'increasing prominence in public education did not necessarily mean an enhanced status with it'. This shows that while education was important in raising awareness about political issues and increasing women's visibility in the public scene, it did not automatically grant them increased rights, and this was something they would have to continue to fight for in the later years as the social revolution movement developed and allowed women gradual access to rights and status. The use of terrorism in the women's movement This next section will examine the use of terrorism to achieve women's liberation and will in particular focus on the impact of the assassination of the tsar on the women's movement. Much of the information I have gathered has been taken from Figner's memoirs and therefore it must be remembered that she herself played a heavy part in the tsar's assassination and therefore many of her views are subjective, and not necessarily historically accurate. In the introduction to her memoirs, Stites stated that the importance of Figner's memoir does not lie in its historical accuracy, but its function as 'moral witness and personal testimony.' Vera Figner summarises her feelings towards the assassination of Alexander II in March 1881: "The assassination had cut short the twenty-six year reign of an Emperor who had opened a new era for Russia, starting her on the road of development. Little by little, social forces and governmental authority parted company. Before the assassination, public opinion had lost all influence over the course of national life and administration. The break between the government and the nation was complete by the 1870s. Each manifestation of rebellion had resulted in a heavier oppression of the people. The assassination took place at a time when there was a general conviction that an attempt would be made- a group of society feared this event while another awaited it with impatience." This summary from Figner raises the question: why would the revolutionaries want to take the life of a tsar who had 'started her on the road of development?' The answer lies in the fact it was not about taking the life of Alexander II per se that was of importance; it was the fact that 'working on a legal foundation had no chance of success'. Whilst Alexander II was by previous standards, a liberal tsar, each concession he made came with its own restrictions and the revolutionaries were coming to realise that whilst a tsarist government was in power, the public would continue to be excluded from Russian politics. However, while the assassination had been long-planned and long-awaited, it did not quite have the revolutionary impact that had been anticipated. The death of Alexander II brought 'far-reaching efforts to restore pre-reform political, social and gender order' back to Russia. In the wake of Alexander II's death, the government made vigorous attempts to remove women from all forms of public life, returning them solely to the domestic sphere, by ending their access to higher education and 'fortifying the patriarchal family'. In the words of Edmondson, the 1880s were a decade where the 'earlier energy of feminism and female radicalism came close to being stifled by the political reaction engulfing Russia after the assassination'. However, it was not just the 1880s where the effects of the assassination were felt. Edmondson continues to argue that the movement never really recovered its early effervescence. 'The movement never recovered, except briefly in 1905 and even more briefly in 1917.' Much expectation was placed upon the aftermath of the assassination that it would trigger a full-scale revolution, or at least achieve the overthrow of the tsarist government. But it failed spectacularly. The already heavy impositions placed upon Russian women were increased and the wave of enthusiasm for the movement never reappeared in all its glory. Edmondson continued to argue that the 'restrictions, repression and despair of the 1880s was far more characteristic of Russian political culture than the relative openness and hopefulness of the early years of Alexander II's reign'. This shows that the assassination, while successful in ending the reign of Alexander II, did not have the desired implications. It did more harm to the movement than could have been anticipated. One of the biggest impacts the assassination had, not only on Russia as a whole, but particularly on the liberation movement for women, was that it put their rights to an education in jeopardy. Edmondson writes that it was not until 1878 that 'the first officially sponsored full-time higher courses for women were authorised'. Nevertheless, when the 1905 Revolution sparked, the same hopes for a full social revolution were visible and the same disappointment was felt across Russian revolutionaries once again. Therefore, one could certainly suggest that the women's movement and the overall social movement were heavily linked, but until 1917, women were always left behind in the aftermath of big social upheavals. This suggests that social revolution was necessary to facilitate the women's movement, for it was only during moments of social upheaval that the women's 'effervescence' resurfaced, but until a full scale revolution took place, there just was not room in the Russian political scene for women. Perception of the revolutionaries was poor in the early stages of the movement. It was the first time women had really entered the public and political sphere and there were high levels of mistrust of their motivations. It did not help matters that women, particularly the populists, were often seen as 'abnormal, hysterical misfits'. Most women were forced into spending their lives being directly subject to male authority. It was in the peasantry where control over women was tightest. Peasant women were seen as being potentially 'unruly and disruptive, causing peasants to believe that a woman required a man's control.' Historians have tended to view Russian women negatively although the likes of Stites and Ruthchild in recent years have striven to prove that the revolutionaries were 'sane and sober' and 'the women who entered the public sphere often did so consciously with clear goals and strategies'. This can be demonstrated in the fact that 'many female arrestees used their trials as opportunities for political communication with part of the public as a mode of expression deeply connected with moral conscience and the need to explain their motivations to a state that rarely listened'. Conclusion to chapter 1 As Linda Edmondson states, 'it is impossible to estimate the degree to which the feminist movement, as a cohesive force of individuals conscious of the need for change, was responsible for the transformation of women's lives in the second half of the nineteenth century. It could be argued that the movement was only a reflection of shifting attitudes and new social and economic relationships which would inevitably alter the position of women in society, regardless of personal initiatives'. We must briefly examine each decade between 1860 and 1900 to summarise the relationship between the overall liberation movement and the status of the women's movement. 'During the 1860s, women did not participate extensively or on an equal footing with men in other forms of radical activity. When women were involved at all, they played a peripheral or auxiliary role.'