Russian Social History: Personality, Democratic Family, Civil Society, and the Formation of a Rule-of-Law State (Imperial Russia: 18th Century to Early 20th Century) (Volumes 1 and 2)

Author: [Russian] Mironov
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-01-01
Features: Before the 1861 Emancipation Reform, Orthodox peasants typically spent their childhood and youth in compound patriarchal families. These families included two or three generations of direct descendants, such as grandparents and their children or fathers and their children. This type of family was not only a kinship organization but, more importantly, an economic organization based on gendered division of labor. The male elder—grandfather, father, or patriarch—was the leader and ruler of the family. Except for the share of the wife, all property was communal and managed by the patriarch. Compound families were regarded by scholars studying peasant life as a model where the interests of the family and individuals were preserved, characterized by order, peace, and prosperity. Is this truly the case? The compound patriarchal family was a small autocratic kingdom. The father or grandfather, as the most experienced and eldest man in the family, exercised patriarchal authority at home, much like the 17th-century Russian Tsar, based on legitimate belief and the sacred tradition of patriarchy. He was responsible for allocating the labor of family members, supervising their work, arbitrating internal conflicts, punishing transgressors, upholding morality, entering into contracts, shopping, and paying taxes. He oversaw family rituals and represented the family's interests to the village, the landlord (in the name of the lord), and local authorities at all times. His authority over contracts further strengthened his power. He had the right to punish children or brothers who defied his will. The situation of family members was sometimes difficult under the pressure of the patriarch. Peasant life followed customs that prohibited children from separating from their fathers or requesting division of the family. Divorce was only allowed if the father or grandfather squandered property, drank excessively, or caused serious harm to the family's interests. In such cases, property could only be divided among children or relatives who were about to become independent, with the approval and supervision of the village community. Hierarchy was the foundation of family relationships. The entire family was expected to obey the head of the household, women were expected to obey the grandmother (the wife of the patriarch), and men were expected to obey elders. Children were expected to obey adults. Women held a low status, had no voting rights, and were completely subservient to their grandfathers and husbands. Due to the immense power of the father (or grandfather), until the early 20th century, the father-in-law still had the right to claim his daughter-in-law. The relationship between a wife and husband was akin to that between a subject and a monarch or a serf and a landlord. Regarding the status of women in the 16th–17th centuries, H.H. Kostomarov wrote, "Russian women had never been free in their entire lives." Men could sell their wives as they sold their children. This situation persisted until the eve of the Emancipation Reform. The renowned ethnographer H.C. Efimenko described the status of women in Arkhangelsk in 1860 as follows: "Women were in a difficult and humbled position." However, compared to other regions, women's family status here was relatively high. Typically, although the grandmother was also expected to obey her husband absolutely, her status was higher than that of other women because she managed them. If the husband died and there were no adult men in the family, the grandmother took over the patriarch's power and became the head of the household. Generally, she managed the family property, the labor of all family members, and their personal lives until the children grew up, married, and had children of their own. However, according to the peasants' perspective, the grandmother was no better than a horse. The ethnographer and nobleman H.H. Nebolisin wrote, "A wife is not a horse; she should be treated as a person." Before the abolition of serfdom, women not only worked before giving birth but were also expected to work by the third day after giving birth. "Sir, how can you treat her like a horse? They are completely different! Only when a woman falls can people take notice. Just like when a horse falls ill, the whole family goes hungry—this is how it is." Twenty-nine years later, the ethnographer H.A. Ivanitsky wrote, "Women seem to be despised in folk culture due to their natural stupidity. They are treated like cold-blooded animals. The soul of a woman is not recognized. Peasants do not see women as human beings, do not recognize their souls, and treat them no better than cows and horses. It is considered natural for women to be beaten."