Paul Werth

"It's time to write a comprehensive history of religion in Russia..."

Paul Werth - Professor, Department of History, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (USA). werthp@unlv.nevada.edu

In his interuieiv, the American historian Paul Werth tells about contemporary state of Russian studies in the USA, his intellectual biography and the prospects of the studies of the Russian religious history Nowadays in America Russian studies and other country specific researches face some problems. Nevertheless, the conferences are hold and the articles published even in the regions, which are distant from the main scientific centers. Paul Werth makes an overview of sources helping to reconstruct the dynamic of religious freedom in Tsarist Russia. The historian analyzes interaction of religious institutes of Russian Empire and its administrative structure, national movements, and ideological climate. Werth demonstrates that in the imperial Russia infringement of religious freedom was an effect of relationship between religious institutions and political administrative and social structure of Empire, but not the result of a particular worldview. The research of the Russian imperial experience helps to draw the more general conclusion in the religious studies and social theory For example, the level of religious freedom is negatively correlated to the use of religion in the secular public life.

Keywords: religion in Russian Empire, Russian studies in USA, religious freedom.

Could you tell us about the development of Russian studies in America? How interested are Americans in studying Russia?

page 315
I would say that the overall situation is not bad, because we had quite a lot of different institutions and foundations that existed in connection with the Cold War. I think that much, though not all, was saved. On the other hand, there are still problems with funding: they are reducing the amount of funds for what is called Area studies, and this applies, of course, to the study of Russia.

Our university 1 does not have a specialized center. I myself graduated from the University of Michigan, which is even worse off in terms of its budget situation. But I would not say that this reflects a lack of interest in Russia. Rather, the reason is the broken American policy, which does not allow us to support the study of other countries at the right level. So the situation isn't perfect, but it's not terrible either.

Perhaps the situation will change due to recent events. It was already emphasized in February, at the hottest moment of events in Kiev, that there are very few political scientists in America who study Russia. These are mostly people of the old generation who got their jobs back when the Soviet Union existed.

How did you personally come up with the Russian theme, and what prompted you to study the pre-revolutionary period, and not the history of the USSR?

This is quite an interesting path. When I entered the university, I was 18 years old, and I didn't know Russian at the time. A friend of mine said he was going to study Russian, and I thought, "Maybe I'll do it too." I started learning the language and really liked it, so I decided to continue. At the same time, I've always had an interest in history. And when the opportunity to enter graduate school appeared, it was quite natural to combine history and Russian.

It started with the fact that I needed to find a topic for my dissertation, and I wanted to write about provincial life in some Russian city. I looked through different cities: something was already written about Saratov, but I chose Kazan. Then I found out that there were a lot of nationalities living there (I didn't know about it at all!), that Kazan was the center of missionaries.-

1. University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

page 316
and I realized that I had found an interesting topic. I didn't know anything about the mission in the multinational Russian province, and I don't think anyone did. But it turned out that almost simultaneously with me, other researchers became interested in similar topics and came to the same conclusions.

When I finished my first book on missionary work in the Volga region, I had a number of new questions that arose in the course of my work. After all, events in the area I was looking at depended on the situation in other parts of the empire. If this was the case in the Volga region, how was it in Transcaucasia? This and similar questions remained open. So I decided to broaden my horizons to look at the entire Russian Empire. That's what I've been doing for 12 years now.

Can we say that you started out as a historian of everyday life, following the French school of "Annals"?

Maybe... Probably, yes. But I can't say that I got very far on this path, because I found out relatively quickly that Kazan is a very interesting place from a different point of view. And I went in a different direction.

In your works, you refer to archival materials and newspapers of that era. Have there been any institutional problems related to the restriction of access to these materials? Maybe there are obstacles to studying its history on the part of Russia?

No, I would say it was relatively simple. There were other problems, such as moving the historical archive in St. Petersburg. It was closed, of course, but it was closed to everyone. At one time there were too few jobs, but this, of course, cannot be blamed on the archive itself. Unfortunately, in many Russian archives it is forbidden to take photos. It's a little annoying.

I worked in all three Baltic countries, and, for example, in Vilnius and Tartu, it was possible to take photos. Although everywhere is different. It wasn't exactly impossible to take pictures in Riga,

page 317
but very expensive: in my opinion, you had to pay for each photo. It's very strange. The modes are different, but I can't complain about the conditions. Everything was more or less normal for me, quiet, calm. They helped me.

Is it easy to find a specific source on a specific topic? Have you ever encountered the fact that the source you need was lost, for example, due to a fire or deliberately destroyed? Is it easy to conduct such research, if the word "easy" is even appropriate here?

I must say that there are always such moments. For example, in the archive of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in St. Petersburg there was a big fire in 1862. I don't even know if it's a lot or a little, but something is lost. It shows. I encountered this problem when I was studying the statistics of switching from one religion to another. When working with the archive, one gets the impression that up to this point, until 1862, there were no such cases in the empire at all! But I believe that this is only a consequence of the loss of documents.

Of course, there are times when you don't know how to find the answer to this or that question - and sometimes you don't find it, and this happens. But, on the other hand, in the course of these searches, you discover so many new, interesting and, most importantly, unexpected things. Even if you can't answer this or that question, there are many other questions that can be answered, since the necessary materials have already been found. Of course, there are some moments of annoyance when you think: "Why can't I find the answer to this question?" But the richness of the archives is so great that you can enjoy what you already have.

How interested are your colleagues in this topic? Do you only work alone, or do you sometimes manage to organize a research group? Are the same conferences held in America as the last one at the RANEPA?

Cooperation happens, of course, it happens! But as for my university, I am alone there. There is another sociologist, a Russian Jew, who left the USSR in the late 70s. Sometimes he's chi-

page 318
He teaches a course on contemporary sociology in Russia, but this is not his specialty.

As for conferences, our large association meets once a year. Smaller conferences are also held from time to time. Our magazine Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History ("Critique: Studies on Russian and Eurasian History") he also organizes scientific discussions on Russian topics. GULAG, Holocaust-such topics are often raised. We recently held a conference dedicated to the War of 1812. Its materials will be published in a special issue that will be published within the next year.

I live in the western United States, in Las Vegas. There are no other major cities nearby, and the nearest city, Los Angeles, is a 5-hour drive away. Still need to get ready to go there! It seems to me that in the East, where there are more specialists and research sites are better concentrated, life is even more intense. We are in a deep desert.

Do you teach Russian history at the university?

Yes, but also European history in general. Some courses are dedicated specifically to Russia, and some to Europe.

In your report at the conference, you mentioned that you are working on the topic of tolerance and harassment towards certain religious groups, but you do not consider what is happening directly within the group. But the question arises: You point out that it is possible to speak about the progress of freedom of conscience and religious tolerance after the manifesto of 1905, but it is precisely during this period that the persecution of a group of name-worshipping monks, initiated by the Synod with the assistance of other state structures, falls. Do you plan to include in your research the problem of tolerance within the Orthodox Church itself and other religious groups?

Basically, that's my plan. I have already discussed this idea with some people here [at the RANEPA conference. - Note.

page 319
As far as I know, there is no general history of religion in Russia for three or four centuries, either in Russian or in English. I would like to write such a generalizing work now - and I think that such points can be included in such a study. But I do not know to what extent this is possible, given the chronological framework of the project.

It seems to me that it is really necessary to combine the analysis of the experience of Orthodoxy with the study of other confessions. The example you are talking about is a good example. Such moments that occur against the background of the proclamation of freedom of conscience are interesting. In my book 2, I conclude that there were huge contradictions in religious politics that were never resolved by the manifesto. This is partly due to the fact that although the proclamation of freedom of conscience took place, it was not implemented in the legislative order: it did not work out. Therefore, the issue was not resolved.

Returning to the subject of your report, I would like to ask: in your opinion, did the Slavophils advocate the ethnic part of the Orthodox identity or the doctrinal one?

This is a good question and a good example of how difficult it was to separate the ethnic and doctrinal aspects of religion in that era. But for me, it was particularly interesting and surprising that some Slavophiles played a rather important role in the development of the discourse on freedom of conscience - this was revealed on closer examination. However, they, of course, approached this issue not from the point of view of foreign confessions, but from the point of view of the Orthodox Church. The Slavophiles believed that the church was somewhat subordinate to the state and that freedom of conscience was a lever, a tool for freeing the church itself from state care. Thus, they contributed to the spread of this concept in society. When the topic of freedom of conscience became widely discussed, it was no longer possible to say that it applied only to Orthodoxy.

Catholics and - even more so-Lutherans talked a lot about this concept in the 60s. They tried to find a way, thanks to which-

2. Werth, PaulW. (2014) The Tsar's Foreign Faiths: Toleration and the Fate of Religious Freedom in Imperial Russia. Oxford University Press.

page 320
thus, those Latvians and Estonians who converted to Orthodoxy in the 1940s could return to their confessions.3 During the war years, they actively campaigned for the right of return and very often spoke about freedom of conscience. I do not know whether the Germans wrote about it and the Slavophiles talked about it, or vice versa. It seems to me that there was a certain general spirit. And as soon as the concept emerged, both groups began to adapt it to their own affairs. So, it was during the war years, during the reforms, that the problem of freedom of conscience became very relevant. In my last book, there is a whole chapter that talks about attempts to reform church affairs, including Orthodox ones, and how little has actually been done.

It turns out to be an amazing situation when philosophy develops a single idea with a single front, but different groups use it for different purposes and using different methods.

You could say that, yes.

In your report, you noted the growth of individuality and consciousness in matters of religion and atheism in the late XIX - early XX century. Did Russian philosophy and literature of this period have a real impact on the religious situation among the subjects and on the policy of the authorities, or, on the contrary, was it a secondary sign of social and political changes?

There was a complex interaction, so we can talk about both. I remember one interesting moment when a local official in the Minsk province wrote that the concept of freedom of conscience at some point spread even among the peasants of his village. This suggests that this philosophical discourse was quite important. But I believe that the spread of philosophical ideas at this level was rare. However, if we talk about:-

3. In the 19th century, the Russian Empire had a legal ban on "falling away" from the Orthodox Church and switching to other Christian denominations.

page 321
The discourse on freedom of conscience was quite important.

For example, I can point to a lawyer like Mikhail Reisner, who was the author of the Soviet-Bolshevik decree on the separation of church and state in 1918. He wrote a number of articles at the beginning of the XX century, published the collection "The State and the religious person" in 1905. If you look at the materials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Department of Spiritual Affairs, you will find that when the Department began preparing bills for the exercise of freedom of conscience, Reisner's works were in archival files-as well as other political and philosophical works. And it becomes clear that the officials had a clear task to implement freedom of conscience. But how to do it? What does this concept even mean?

Officials turned to the literature that was written in the last few years before the 1905 revolution, and it is quite obvious how these texts influenced the political process. But by this I do not mean that the authorities perceived the ideas of thinkers uncritically. The officials said: "Freedom of conscience is so-and-so, but we can't do that in Russia now, because..." - and then the same American experience was cited as an example. They understood that even in America - the country where freedom of conscience is most developed - there are certain restrictions. Therefore, the restrictions in Russia, in their opinion, were also appropriate.

What is the place of modernity in your research, which you mentioned at the beginning of the report?

I have added a discussion of the topic of modernity to my presentation, taking into account the general concept of the conference, but it cannot be said that I am doing this. But this new project, if I do it, will make me more familiar with the current situation. I am ready to do this and I think it will be very interesting - just like it was with the Volga region. Then I had questions about other parts of the empire, and now - including in the discussions at the conference - questions are raised that touch on the history of the further development of the processes that began in tsarist Russia. If at the beginning the project expanded only geographically, then those who did not-

page 322
I would also like to extend the chronological framework, including a little back - say, to the second half of the XVII century. I think that would be very interesting. Especially important is the time after the annexation of Kiev in the middle of the century. In my opinion, this was a key moment in the development of Orthodoxy itself.

Are you planning to expand not only geographically and chronologically, but also thematically? In your recent speeches and articles, elements of political philosophy and social theory appear. For example, based on the thesis of your report that tolerance was manifested in the Russian Empire as a practical, rather than an ideological tool, it would be possible to consider promising concepts of tolerance based on its practical component. It seems to me that this would be relevant in light of the current debate about the essence of liberal democracy, whether it is based on any universal reasonable principles, as Habermas saw it, or whether it is a set of specific institutional practices. Are you thinking of going to philosophy?

I believe that just such questions would be included in this large project. If I do this - I'm not quite sure yet - I think I'm heading in that direction. In my opinion, such issues will be important and relevant for this project. And really, I would like to think about it more. That is why it is very interesting to participate in such a conference - because it makes me think a little differently about this subject: maybe more sociologically or more philosophically, and not purely historically, as happened with the last book. So I think your idea is a good tip!

How can we keep the line between religious indifference and freedom? The solution to this problem lies to a greater extent

page 323
is it on the shoulders of the state authorities, or should religious institutions make the main efforts? Who should play the main role?

This is a very good question, and I'm at a loss to answer it. Partly because I think that in this case there are already all the conditions for religious indifference - at least in Western society. And so I'm not sure that this trend can be changed in any way. Moreover, many people think that it is undesirable to change it, and, most likely, I would join this opinion. Any other option for exercising freedom of conscience is simply unrealistic in the current conditions.

Sometimes I get the feeling that religion helps a person cope with difficult moments in life in many ways; I understand that this may be a very simple view. We are probably living relatively well now. I don't want to exaggerate, of course, and talk about those who do not live so well in your and our societies, but the average standard of living is quite high. And from time to time it seems to me that a real revival of religion would require a kind of catastrophe. For example, the climate is clearly changing now. This is a slow process, and it is impossible to specify any specific moment, but if there are any catastrophes that affect food production or anything related to it, I wonder what the consequences will be for religious sentiment? I don't know.

Still, the question of the relationship between indifference and freedom is very, very complex. In my opinion, there is reason to think that one is a prerequisite for the other. To be honest, I do not know what "full religious freedom" means. But relative, more complete religious freedom presupposes the dominance of indifference in society.

To make a choice, do you need to free yourself from being biased by a particular religion?

Yes. Religion can influence the forms of social structure, and then it is possible that the state of society is such that much depends on religious views - for example, the legal or social status of different citizens. In such circumstances, it is much more difficult to exercise religious freedom precisely because there is too much to do with religion.

page 324
In the history of the Russian Empire, there were moments when officials may have wanted - it is difficult to say to what extent this was hypocritical - to expand religious freedom. But the administrative order, the institutional order of the state at that time did not allow such a project to be implemented. Therefore, freedom is possible only when religion is no longer associated with these institutions - for example, with the institution of marriage. The government clearly did not want to introduce civil marriage, because it was a violation of the values of that era, it was unacceptable from a moral point of view. But on the other hand, it was also a practical matter. Who will legalize marriage, if not a clergyman? By what rules? How to do it? It should be understood that we are talking about a state that barely coped with the tasks that already faced it, and did not want to take on additional responsibility. There was an institution of religious marriage - Orthodox, Muslim, Catholic... It was easier for the state to leave this institution. It was not able to quickly develop and offer a secular alternative.

You can recall the problem of metric books, birth and death records. Many times we talked about the need to introduce civil metrics. Due to the emergence of the discourse on freedom of conscience, this problem was particularly acute. But who would be involved in Yandex. Metrica? And officials understand that the clergy already perform this function - and for free! This is his responsibility. Yes, it sometimes performs this function poorly. Yes, there are many problems with writing the same name in different alphabets - for example, Jews and Muslims. However, the police cannot deal with such a case, because it is necessary to take into account every person in the Russian Empire - and there are 125 million of them. The State is not in a position to do this.

Religion takes on a different meaning in such circumstances. And religious freedom, respectively, is conditioned by these factors. And when faith is separated from the functions imposed on it, then it becomes like a closed box: "This is the Resurrection. It's not about education, it's not about marriage, it's not about that, the other, the third..." - complete freedom. And in Russia, as I think, Orthodoxy is still closely connected, for example, with the concept of the Russian people. Therefore, in these conditions, it is much more difficult to be indifferent to, say, missio-

page 325
Protestant groups ' missionary activities are seen as an encroachment on the Russian people, and many do not want to allow this.

In this case, is it indifference that is lacking in modern Russia?

This may sound rude, but I would say that if people's religious views are important for modern society and are taken into account when solving public issues, then the level of religious freedom will also decrease. And I can't decide: which is better? Should religion occupy a smaller place in the social structure - or vice versa? Rather, these are issues that each society must collectively address for itself. Just because I have a personal view doesn't mean that others have to agree with me.

It is strange that the word "secularization"was never mentioned at this table. Is it fair to say that Russia should complete the secularization process?

I don't want to take on the responsibility of resolving this issue for Russia. I study Russia, I sympathize with Russia. But it's hard for me to decide anything and say, " You have to do this!" I tend to say, " This is an open question for you."

Interviewed by Alexander Batishchev and Ilya Pavlov

page 326

Permanent link to this publication: