For several centuries Russia has been a multi-ethnic empire, a factor that determined its Imperial, Soviet-era, and contemporary history. This might be illustrated by two examples: the wars in Chechnya and Russia’s foreign policy today, both of which relate to its leading position in the world order during the Soviet period. In her study of the social life of the German, Latvian, Russian and Jewish population in Riga, Ulrike von Hirschhausen therefore takes up a topic of particular relevance to present times.
Von Hirschhausen presents a very well written postdoctoral thesis. She wants to clarify three aspects. Her first point is that multi-ethnicity is not a phenomenon restricted primarily to the pre-modern era, but rather a typical structural element of many European societies. It therefore represents European normality (S. 15). Secondly, the author opposes the widely accepted assumption of many studies of nationalism to the effect that in multi-ethnic conditions national identities almost inevitably develop and dominate other loyalties, such as regional or religious ones. Thirdly, von Hirschhausen refers to the highly controversial discussion about the development of a civil society in late imperial Russia. It should be mentioned that the special multi-ethnic conditions of Riga could add a new argument to the discussion. Von Hirschhausen adopts the latest method of studies of this topic insofar as she does not assume “civil society” as a normative concept, but rather uses it as an analytical device. It is therefore possible for her to examine changes and limitations of civil developments at the same time. In this respect, she wants to know whether common values and practices existed that promoted national interests over those of the local society (S. 19). Because of these questions, von Hirschhausen’s claim to write an “interethnische Verflechtungsgeschichte” (“ethnically intertwined history”) is convincing. Such a narrative should broaden the ethnocentric perspective that has dominated historiography, and should help take into account the interdependencies of the ethnic groups (S. 21, 22). Von Hirschhausen tries to approach these mutual influences by applying the analytical category of “ethnic milieus,” which helps describe the “inner self-identification” of the ethnic groups portrayed. This refers to the multiple processes by which the groups distinguish one from another through common values, practices, and interpretations (S. 27).
In the first five chapters the author investigates her central question about why the social groups of Riga were to a great extent segmented by nations. In the first chapter she details changes in the urban development, demography, ethnic, and socio-economic structures of Riga. This chapter highlights two important processes: On the one hand, the different parts of Riga became more and more multi-ethnic. This especially concerned the city center, which had long been dominated by the Germans. Riga changed its ethnic structure as a consequence of industrialization, migration, and urbanization. On the other hand, the different ethnic groups tried to save homogenous micro-structures, i.e., in houses or streets. In general, ethnic and social affiliations remained clearly differentiated until World War I. Housing was no longer a question so much of ethnic but rather of social background. Thus in terms of physical distance the ethnic groups moved closer together. At the same time, von Hirschhausen points to the formation of ethnic milieus, which increasingly lost their openness to social and cultural transition (S. 67).
The second chapter is dedicated to the biographical dimensions of the inner formation of ethnic milieus, their related practices, their ideas, and the general politicization of ethnicity. Von Hirschhausen presents these aspects very lucidly based on certain examples of German, Latvian, Russian, and Jewish actors. She convincingly argues that the Russian milieu did not reach the same dense organizational and ideological structure as the German or Latvian ones, although its tendencies of nationalism were equally strong. The Jewish milieu was characterized by certain discontinuities: The elder generation felt attracted by German culture, social advancement, and religious assertion, whereas the younger exponents preferred the Russian milieu. Political and social differences became more important after the turn of the century. In general, religion and ethnicity permanently separated the Jewish milieu from its Christian neighbors. It is true that these well-chosen biographies are based on meaningful materials and give impressive insights into the ideas of leading representatives of the different milieus. However, it remains at least questionable how much these exponents of the ethnic elites really represented the average member of their respective milieus in the full sense of the word. The reader does not get to know how the ideas of Latvian nationalism or the German construction of historical continuities concerning the local order spread or how the ethnic groups picked them up.
The third chapter concentrates on the influence that multi-ethnicity exerted on local society, especially in terms of its ability to reform. Therefore it examines the social structure of the political elite, the different concepts of local politics, and the relationship between Baltic liberalism and multi-ethnicity on the national scale. The reform of local government in 1877 principally opened local politics to all ethnic groups, including Jews (until 1892). It deprived the Germans of its traditional political monopoly in Riga. Nevertheless, they only slowly lost their dominant position, not least because they formed a coalition with the Russians against the Latvians. Thus the reform of 1877 marked the beginning of a national orientation of local politics in the form of election campaigns based on ethnicity. The reform accelerated the development of the public sphere. In the early twentieth century, the German upper strata and its dominating liberal wing reacted to these challenges with important socio-political reforms no longer based on estates. As von Hirschhausen concentrates her analysis of local politics on the German milieu, she draws a more harmonious picture of Riga’s social life than her hints at the growing ethnic tensions lead one to presume. For example, von Hirschhausen interprets the Germans claim to promote a “Baltic public welfare” (S. 184) as an attempt to preserve their power. On the surface this explanation seems to be convincing, because Riga’s infrastructure and urban development were very progressive compared with many Russian cities. Nevertheless, this picture is perhaps too static, as von Hirschhausen does not really try to deconstruct the German representations as opposed to the interpretations of the other ethnic groups. It remains unclear how the important local topics of urban development and socio-political concepts changed among the various ethnic public spheres. Generally, there is no detailed analysis of the city duma debates, the various participants, or of the local press organs in their ethnic differentiation, all of which might shed light on and perhaps prove von Hirschhausen’s interpretation. In this context, the “borderlines of common ground” suggested by the heading of the book remain too vague.
The fourth chapter covers the influences of multi-ethnicity on the vigorous life of clubs, societies, and associations. Von Hirschhausen sees them as the basis of a “local civil society” (S. 213). By describing the development of inner ethnic boundaries since the 1860s she brings out the ambiguity of civil society, which does not work out solely in a democratic teleology, in peaceful social life, or in common public welfare. On the contrary, until 1914 most of the clubs and societies were deeply embedded in their respective ethnic milieu.
Finally, von Hirschhausen analyzes how the state’s attempts at Russification segmented cultural practices in schools and religion, for example, concerning urban festivities, the construction of a memorial to Peter the Great, and competing mental maps. It becomes clearer how the Germans, on the one hand, tried to preserve their dominant cultural position and how, on the other, the Latvians tried to emancipate themselves politically and culturally. The author especially shows how Germans and Latvians, challenged by one another as well as by Russian claims of hegemony, developed new interpretations of “Baltisch” (Baltic) and “Latvija.”
This study opens several new and productive perspectives on multi-ethnicity in eastern Central Europe, although its focus is not as innovative as it pretends to be, if one refers for example to existing research on Western Ukraine or Silesia.^[1] In addition, the analysis of Riga’s ethnic groups and their mutual influences are not equal in weight. Von Hirschhausen clearly concentrates on the Germans and their relationship towards Russians and Latvians, however, the main actors of the narrative are the members of Riga’s elites. Surely, intellectual elites, who formulate the ideas and interpretations of historical, political, cultural, or social processes, play a leading role in the formation of ethnic milieus of nationalism. But questions remain about how this elitist picture of the ethnic milieus varied from that of the lower strata of society. How the latter perceived the elitist conceptions remains an open question.
Furthermore, the author interprets her results against the evidently negative background of Russian cities. It is true that there are not many studies of Russian civil society to which one can refer. Even so, some of von Hirschhausen’s theses are at least questionable, remain unproved, or should have been more thoroughly explained (for example, S. 35, 54, 106, 350, 376). Thus she only partly fulfills her complex claim of an “intertwined history.” Regardless, the study generally contributes to a new understanding of specific eastern Central European multi-ethnicity.
Unfortunately, some mistakes concerning Russian history slipped in. Russian contemporaries, for example, did not call the seasonal return of the peasants from the cities to their villages “otkhodnichestvo” (S. 53), but the other way around – this term meant their migration into the cities looking for work. The Manifesto of October 1905 did not proclaim an equal electoral law, and Stolypin did not impose an electoral law based on “classes” in 1906 (S. 124). Apart from repeatedly wrong transliterations of Russian names and terms (S. 245, 328, 331), there are also orthographic mistakes in important terms (S. 212). Perhaps this all reflects the complex challenge of writing a multi-ethnic history through the lenses of various languages and methodologies. Thus it remains the task of further studies to determine in detail where, when, and under which conditions civic commitment dominated everyday life in eastern Central Europe. Those studies will have to compete with the remarkable benchmark set here by von Hirschhausen.