The System Reconstruction and Value Reorientation of Russian Historiography in the Contemporary Era

1.1 The Historiography Crisis in the Period of Social Turmoil

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of CPSU caused dramatic changes in the humanity and social science fields. The historiography crisis in the latter half of 1980s continued to ferment. The ideological and theoretical circle ran into a dramatic turmoil and rapid change. Russian historian A. A. Iskenderov pointed out: “The crisis of Russian historiography and science is directly related to Marxism crisis, and to the crisis of historical materialism, because it is taken as the only correct method for historical understanding, research, and interpretation” (Искендеров, 1996, p. 8).

While reflecting on doctrine historiography, some political comment reporters, columnists, historians wrote all kinds of new historical works different from those during the Soviet Union by decoding document to adapt to the political need at that time. For example, B. Suvorov’s Icebreaker (Moscow, 1992), B. Khutorskoi’s Russian History: Soviet Period (1917–1993) (Moscow, 1994) and other essays not only deflected historical facts, but also denied many achievements of Russian historiography. The continuously expanding “historical nihilism” caused great trouble in national identity and ethnic identity, and the artificially separated historical interconnection led to contradicting historical views. In addition, due to the fee cut caused by the economic recession, Russian historiography research and teaching were seriously affected; talent loss, document realization, publishing difficulty were ubiquitous.

1.2 The Transformation of Historiography in the Russian Reform

After experiencing the serious social crisis brought about by the liberalism reform in the 1990s, many scholars started to recognize and comment on the core value and national spirit against the traditional culture. With the criticism and reflection on metaphysics, economic determinism and mechanical materialism, the diversification of historical concepts started to take shape. After the decoding and publication of most historical documents, many researches on pending questions in history made breakthroughs. By introducing historical achievements of the West in the contemporary era, and applying modern technology to historical research and practice, Russian historiography made new progress in theory and method. Some scholars expressed doubts about the radical historiography trend of thought that led to social disruption and ethnic division, and corrected the “nihilism in historiography”.

Most historians argued for recognizing national history in a scientific and rational way, and they should explore the commonality and particularity of Russian development path as a whole. In the meantime, to cope with the national entrance examination, the education department of Russia organized certain units to compile the new Russian History: College Entrance Examination Reference Book in 1993. The three history textbooks compiled by the Moscow Economics, Politics, and Law School describe the history of Russia and Soviet Union in a more objective way, avoid comment on sensitive historical problems, and focus on introducing the economic and cultural achievements in Russian history. With a lot of historical literature and documents and resources, the textbooks enabled students to have a more objective and rational understanding of their national history and guided them to have a deep reflection on its uniqueness and civilization against the backdrop of world history. In the late 1990s, the Russian historiography was freed from all kinds of disruptions and began to approach the past historical achievements in a scientific and open manner to find the innate logic and regular factors of Russian historical development.

1.3 The Influence of Diverse Social Thinking Trends on Historical View

In the 1990s, Russia had the following trends of social thinking. The first group is the liberals who proposed to have a fundamental transformation of the social system to let Russia integrate rapidly into the Western world with the capitalism model. They advocated Western historiography and culture, and looked down upon and denied their national history and traditional culture; they were major representatives to oppose traditional historiography and deny Russian historiography. The second is radicalism proposing to break away from the old order by all means; they tried to damage the previous system starting from historical nihilism. However, they did not realize the difficulty and complexity of Russian reform and underestimated the difficulty of economic and social transformation. They made the nation operate along the wrong reform path with accelerated speed, causing serious damage to the economy and society. The third is the new nationalism thought combining patriotism, nationalism and national renaissance which share the idea of opposing full Westernization. They proposed to take a unique path of reform and development which is different from that taken by the West. They argued for respecting national history and asked for building a powerful country, restoring Russian status as a major country. It thus became the theoretical foundation of Putin’s thought of national revitalization. The fourth is the reinvigorated Eurasianism, which believed Russia is the bridge connecting Europe and Asia. As a major country encompassing Europe and Asia, it cannot over emphasize Slavism, nor can it borrow everything from the West. They argued to determine Russian strategic positioning in the multi-polar and diverse world civilization. They emphasized “social order and justice”, claiming that the state plays an important role and only a strong nation can free Russia from crisis. Although the above social thinking trend took a diversity of forms, however, maintaining an advantageous status in the new international landscape is essential; it needs to accelerate the Russian invigoration and gradually forming ideological mainstream with a major influence on historical development.

1.4 Historical Document Policy and the Theory and Method to Find the Historical Fact

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, national documents were once seriously damaged, and some classified documents were destroyed or sold at a high price. On August 24, 1991, President Boris Yeltsin promulgated the decree of Archives about the Party which announced a stop-off for damaging and transferring documents and all documents would be stored by the Russian Bureau of Documents (Dai, 2001). In 1992, with the birth of two journals for professional historical materials, Historical Archive and Sources, Russian documents started to be protected and utilized. In the meantime, the journal Historical Issue published part of the decoding documents and materials. In 1997, the Open Documents compiled by I. Kondakova was published, which selected important documents published by all kinds of Russian magazines from 1985 to 1995 with necessary editing and filing. To strengthen the guidance on the theory and method of historical documents and materials study, Professor I. Danilevski of Russian National Humanities University edited and published the textbook Historical Sources, Theory, History and Methods: Russian Sources in 1998. The author believed the function of historical materials is not only to obtain information, but also to take the collection and compilation of historical materials as a cultural phenomenon. By inspecting on the complex process of the production and cognition of historical materials, we can observe the interaction between materials and researchers. In 1999, historian N. Pokrovski published the article On the Principles of Document Publishing in the 20th Century on Historical Issue, who emphasized that historical materials researchers should not only have strict comparison of the different versions of the same document, but also have investigations of related materials about their writing, publication and implementation of the document. This work promoted the development of Russian historiography in the contemporary era.

2.1 The Influence of Western New Historiography on Russian Social History Research

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 20th century Western new historiography exerted a huge influence on the reconstruction of Russian historiography. While criticizing and reflecting on the damage caused by dogmatism and metaphysics to Russian historiography, scholars began to pay attention to new perspectives and methods. The new perspectives and methods included historical anthropology, micro-historiography, feminist historiography, postcolonial historiography, environmental historiography. They also emphasized the comparative study of civilization history, global history, new culture history and cross culture history. The rise of history of family, women, mentality, and behavior model in Russia expanded the scope of social history research. Scholars gave up the stagnant method of simplistic class analysis and class struggle determinism, and saw the common people and family as the society cell, classifying the people’s lives in different periods and at different places, and their influence on historical process. By learning from the academic achievements in the Western Neo-Marxist historiography, the French Annales school, and British school of New social history, scholars enhanced researches in the fields of social strata, living conditions, spiritual support, religious belief, and psychological characteristics. The method of micro-historiography was gradually recognized by scholars. Memoirs of historical figures, diaries, letters, notes, oral materials, video materials were what historians focused on. The major representative works are: B. Mironov’s Social History of Russia (St. Petersburg, 1997), I. Pankeev’s Customs and Traditions of the Russian Nation (Moscow, 1999), N. Lebina’s Daily Life in Soviet Cities (1920–1930) (Moscow, 1990), Е. Dukov’s Russian Recreational Culture in the 18th-19th Centuries (St. Petersburg, 2000), collection of articles The National History of the Soviet Union and the Post-Soviet Union (Moscow, 1999) and А. Nikolin’s The Church and the State (Moscow, 1997).

2.2 The History and Teaching: The History Narrative in the New Textbooks

After years of adjustment and continuous modification, new changes emerged in historiography textbooks. From 1995 to 1996, Russia published more than 160 kinds of various handout courses, teaching reference books, selected texts and teaching manuals. Major works are the reference book History of Russia Since Ancient Times edited by N. Zuev (Moscow Higher Education Press, 1996), B. Borisov’s lecture course The History of Russia (Moscow, 1996), textbook History of Russia Since Ancient Times complied by O. Fedorov (Orel, 1996), textbook Russian Culture in the 9th–20th Century compiled by B. Shulgin, et al., (Moscow University Press, 1996). Take The History of Russia (1861–1917) written by В. А. Fedorov for example, the author learned from the latest achievements of Russian historiography research and used rich documents and materials to elaborate on the history from the reform of serfdom in 1861 to the February Revolution in 1917. It pointed out that in this historical period, “The Russian social and economic, political and cultural life saw major changes, capitalist reform, the establishment and development of capitalism, industrial monopoly, trade and banking, and the formation of the new social strata in the population” (Федоров, 2000, p. 9). This proves that this is an important reform period in Russian history. Because of the commercialization of agricultural products, and the gradual increase of products entering into exchange, capitalism factors appeared in the rural area. These ideas enabled students and readers to have a more complete understanding and deep recognition of their national history. Through the change in historical narrative, they got rid of the mechanical material and metaphysical interpretation of historiography in the past textbooks.

2.3 The Recognition of Russian Complex Revolution History and the New Perspectives

The revolution history research in this period changes the highly politicized stance specific to the past era. When historians reexamine the past revolutionary historiography completion, they recognized its problems (Yao, 2013). Although some historians “can cast doubt on the premise of the existence of capitalist revolution and socialist revolution in 1917, they cannot neglect research on the root and conditions of the 1917 revolution. Because the revolution itself is an undeniable fact. The social and political explosion in 1917 has its rationality. The long-term factors of Russian society and economy were part of its cause, but the major role was the changed social situation related to World War I” (Yao, 2013, pp. 3–4). For example, A. A. Iskenderov pointed out that the historical factors influencing the 1917 revolution include the slow abolition of serfdom, the decline of the authority of the church, the breakage between the monarch and the people, and the loss of the interaction between opposing parties.” P. Volobuev believed that “the October revolution is the result of the systematic crises” (Yao, 2013, p. 4). B. Ananich and other scholars saw the two political events in February and October in 1917 as a revolution and a continuous process” (Yao, 2013, pp. 4–5). These new views and opinions were different and broke away from the past simplistic and purely political mindset, which laid a solid foundation for re-recognizing the Russian revolution and its modern and contemporary history.

2.4 The New Viewpoints and Academic Achievements of Russian Historiography of A. N. Sakharov

A. N. Sakharov, the academician of Russian Academy of Sciences and director of Russian History Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences is representative among contemporary Russian historians. He pointed out in his article New Views on Russian History, “The series of events of Russia at the end of 1980s and the beginning of 1990s seriously influenced our national history and science. In fact, the transformation of cognition of our national history especially that in the 20th century started from 1950s to 1960s, and was in full swing at the end of 1980s” (Сахаров, 2002, p. 3). Therefore, the present comment on history and science “have to consider the condition of the whole society, the nature of social development, and the whole trend” (Сахаров, 2002, p. 3). Sakharov believes that “adhering to the truthfulness of the history will make historiography more serious and objective. The seriousness lies in that historiography can tell us the truth of the past and the future about ourselves” (Сахаров, 2002, p. 4). As the representative of Russian public historiography, Sakharov’s research focus and direction, stance and viewpoint had a significant meaning. He presided over the writing of Russian Historians: The 17th–20th Centuries (Moscow, 1996), Russian History (From Ancient Times to the End of the 20th Century) (Moscow, 1996, in three volumes), Reforms and Reformers in Russian History (Moscow, 1996), Russia in the 19th–20th Centuries: Foreign Historiography (Moscow, 1996), Russia in the 20th Century: The Fate of Historical Science (Moscow, 1996), Modern and Contemporary Russian History: A Textbook (Moscow, 2010).These books represented the progress and level of contemporary Russian historiography. In addition, he also published many essays about social history, war history, diplomacy history, and historiography theory (Сахаров, 1996а, 1996в) The writings compiled by him were designated by the Russian Education Department as the university historiography professional textbook or teacher’s reference materials. For example, the three volumes Russian Historiography (From the Ancient Time to the End of the 20th Century) strived for objectivity, practicality, and innovation in terms of utilization of sources, historical segmentation and character evaluation. They incorporated the significant historical events at the end of the 20th century into Russian historical process and emphasized the completeness and continuity and made breakthroughs on the research of major historical events in different historical periods (Сахаров, 1996б).

3.1 The Major Sign and Basic Trend of Historiography Transformation in the New Period

The “New Russian Idea” had important significance for Russia to establish new ideological system in the transition period. Just as A. V. Filippov said, “Russian culture and society start to focus on and think about its own origin and legacy, and its position in the global civilization. After the rapid reform period and entering into the global civilization, people come to see the inheritance of Russian history. The Russian history is an inseparable part of Russian historiography” (Filippov, 2009, p. 412). The progress of historical work and textbook in this period are mainly manifested in the following aspects. The first is the basic requirements of reviewing the historiography in an objective way and restoring the major power status. For example, Modern Russian History (1945–2006) edited by A. V. Filippov was considered a textbook reflecting on the Russian history and people in a fairly objective way, manifesting Putin’s instruction and requirements for the compilation of the book. The second is the innovation of historical concept and method. The newly published historical works and historical textbooks assimilated the latest research achievements in historical theory and methods, reflecting the progress made by Russian scholars in this field. The third is analysis of complex historical processes by applying historical methods. For example, Russian History (1861–1917) written by V. A. Fedorov elaborated on the extreme complexity of Russian history, pointing out that it was precisely because of the mutual interaction and influence that the historical process was formed. The fourth is integrating the past and the present. Russian scholars in this period tended to incorporate the valuable and the latest research achievements into the textbook syllabus and the history textbooks to enable students and general readers to understand Russian history research, finding the solution to the real problems from history. For example, The Contemporary Russian History (1985–2009) edited by A. V. Bezborodov summarized historical experience and profound lessons in the Soviet Union and made a general comment on the political and economic reform during the reign of Boris Yeltsin, analyzing and elaborating on Putin’s governance thought. These narrations had realistic meaning to Russian political development in the contemporary era, providing necessary theoretical reference to domestic and foreign policy.

3.2 The “Russian History Year” Activity

Putin Resumed Office in 2012. The year 2012 also marks the anniversary of many significant events in Russian history, for example, the 1150th birthday of the Russian state, 300 years since Peter I moved the capital to St. Petersburg, 200 years since the victory of the Great Patriotic War of 1812, 200 years since A. Herzen’s birth, 70 years since the outbreak of the Battle of Stalingrad, and 150 years since P. Stolypin’s birth. President D. Medvedev signed the presidential order that the “Russian History Year” celebration activities be organized in 2012. Accordingly, specific requirements were issued about time management, government investment, public participation and other aspects. The purpose was to arouse the society’s emphasis on national history and Russia’s role in the world historical process. It stimulated people’s patriotism, opposed behaviors in distorting national history, strengthened and protected national unity, maintained national identity, and aroused the spiritual force to rebuild the country. Many famous experts and scholars and social activists in fields such as historiography, culture, religion, political science, ethnology, sociology entered the action organizing committee to ensure the objectivity in evaluation of historical figures and events and provide historical facts and academic support for the anniversary. The “Russian History Year” activity was warmly welcomed by the society, and people were taking an active role. With the holding of the activity, the trend to protect historical and cultural legacy was stimulated nationwide.

3.3 The Study of History of Russian Émigré From the Perspective of Civilization Conflict and Integration

The period from the second half of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century is of great importance with the empire Russia system reform and social change. The emigration wave caused by national expansion and sharpening national contradiction was unprecedented. Some people left Russia, becoming Russian émigré that have lived abroad for a long time. For instance, in the wave of anti-Semitism in Tsarist Russia, some Jews fled abroad. With the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway and Chinese Eastern Railway, hundreds of thousands of Russians came to work and live along Chinese Eastern Railway centered in Harbin, China. Before and after the revolution, some old aristocrats, old military officers, industrialists, artists flowed to the West or China, or other places. The trans-continent migration of Russians in the contemporary era had produced far-reaching effect on the Russian society in the wartime and revolution era. At the same time, Russian émigré groups scattering around the world had also influenced the social changes in the Soviet Union and Russia in different periods and degrees. Therefore, the research on the history and culture of Russian émigré had attracted widespread attention of scholars both in Russia and other countries. For example, published by the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences in 1998, Age, People and Destiny: The History of Russian Émigré in China is an authoritative work in this field. Collected Works of Russian Émigré published by Amur National University in 2013 collected biographies, memoirs, essays written by 15 Russian expatriates living in Harbin and other places in China. Before and after the October Revolution, many Russian expatriates going to the west formed groups abroad, often called “Overseas Russia”. They had a strong interest in national literature and art and there emerged Russian émigré literature groups. There were also some exiled intellectuals who carefully studied what happened in Russia, or analyzed Russian politics and economy, reality and future from the perspective of overseas Russians (Забияко, 2013). At the same time, the research on the history of overseas Chinese in Russia had also made progress. The History of Chinese in Russia (1856–1917) written by A. I. Petrov of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2003) comprehensively expounded the historical process of Chinese living in Russia during the 60 years from Alexander II’s reign to the October Revolution (Петров, 2003). The book Chinese in Vladivostok: A Chapter in the History of Vladivostok (1870–1938) written by Russian scholars N. Miz and D. Ancha was translated into Chinese and published in 2016. The book relates all aspects of the social activity and normal life of Chinese diaspora in the Russian Far East, revealing the historical process of conflict and integration between different civilizations.

3.4 Russian Historiography Research in the Past 25 Years--New Perspectives and Viewpoints

In 2013, the book Historical Studies in Russia in Recent 25 Years edited by historian Gennady Bordyugov was published. As a large-scale academic collection that comprehensively summarizes contemporary Russian historiography, it is a key project supported by the Russian Association of Social Researchers (AIRO-XXI). The book totals 1520 pages and deals with three historical periods: from 1988 to 1996, from 1996 to 2002, and from 2003 to 2012. Every period was divided into several themes. Research reports written by historians are included in the report according to different themes, covering almost all important fields in different periods of Russia and Soviet Union (Бордюгов, 2013). The authors analyzed the preconditions, historical materials and contexts, concepts and consciousness and other issues of historiography in the new period. They had a systematic analysis and summary on national policy, wartime communism, new economic policy, Lenin and Leninism, the phenomenon of “Stalin’s return”, historical material analysis about Bukharin and Trotsky, female and gender research, normal life history, power phenomenon, anthropology, Russian history and other researches. As a multi-ethnic nation, the interaction and communication, and conflict and integration between different ethnic groups in Russia are still the important issues studied by historians, which is also reflected in this book. In the meantime, the author also had objective analysis of the Russia historical research by France, Japan and other countries. Offering objective comments on complex historical processes and phenomena, the authors contributed their basic judgement on the development trend of Russian historiography in the contemporary era. Although historians differ in historical concepts and thinking, their historical researches tend to be more objective and rational, showing that Russian historiography had made exploration surrounding historical experience and lesson, national inheritance and spirit. On the whole, Russian historiography has entered a new development period.

3.5 The Unified History Textbook and Its Russian Revolution Concept

In February 2013, Putin pointed out that a unified Russian history textbook for middle schools should be considered, which was suitable for people of different ages. It should be based on a unified conceptual scope, a unified logical scope of continuous Russian history, the interconnection of various stages, and respect for the past (Известия, 2013). According to Putin’s request, the compilation of a unified history textbook was started. Academician A. Chubaryan, director of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, served as the academic director of the Textbook Working Committee, and drafted and adopted the General Outline of the New Teaching Method of Russian History Unified Textbooks. Since then, several major publishing houses in Moscow had organized historians to write new history textbooks. One year later, through appraisal and evaluation, three sets of textbooks were selected. Among them, Russian Academy of Sciences academician A. Torkunov was the editor-in-chief and the textbook of Russian History: Grade 10 published by Education Press was authoritative. The common features of several unified history textbooks are: (1) following the long-term and overall history thought; (2) emphasizing the inherent logic and continuity of the historical process; (3) making objective evaluation of important historical events and figures on the basis of respecting historical facts; (4) making more rational and objective formulation and evaluation of some sensitive issues in Soviet history; (5) emphasizing respect for history and carrying forward patriotism, and (6) resolutely opposing the negation of the achievements of World War II. At the end of the book, the publishing house of educational textbooks wrote, “The 21st century should be the century of the revival of new Russia” (Торкунов, 2016, p. 109). This shows that the tasks of carrying forward patriotism, boosting national spirit and uniting social forces carried by the unified history textbook have been fully reflected. At the same time, the textbook Russian History published by Education Press collectively referred to the Russian revolution in 1917 as the Great Russian Revolution. The overall discussion of this historical process reflected Russian historians’ new understanding of this issue. This new change not only conforms to the Russian official requirements for the unity of different viewpoints, but more importantly, from the perspective of overall history, it made a breakthrough in the understanding of the October Revolution in theory and practice. This not only has historical understanding value, but also has certain practical significance.

While entering the third decade of the 21st century, with the accelerated progression of the world situation, the continuous expansion of COVID 19 pandemic, the significant changes in world history shocked all aspects of human society. While bringing people peace and hope, these changes also brought about war and crisis. In Russia with tough and complex transformation and many future challenges, historiography again attracted people’s attention because “historians are aware that the modern scope is not a unified process and it also has different manifestations under the different backgrounds of different cultural traditions. Modernization at most is an ideal-typical example to measure specific changes according to specific conditions. However, the condition of historical thinking and theory is far from ending history, but leading it to greater complexity. Broader contexts and personal differences have their own status” (Iggers, 2003, p. 165). Russian historian А. N. Sakharov also believes that “Today’s Russian historiography is vibrant and disputatious. It is closely linked with world historiography. The research work of historians is based on using the international and national historical legacy, and a deeper grasp of documents and materials. The precondition of the future of Russian historiography is to develop in free conditions” (Сахаров, 2002, p. 16). Above all, it has become the value reorientation and political need of Russian history discourse system in the contemporary era to explore the historical basis of the multi-ethnic civilization concept that takes Russian ethnic culture as the core, to strengthen Russian historical national concept with great cultural capacity in the Slavic cultural circle, to set the common development goal of all ethnicities, and to realize the national strengthening strategic goal. This shows the new development trend of Russian historiography against the backdrop of world order reconstruction to a certain extent.