Grigoriev in Orenburg

8/13/2019 Grigoriev in Orenburg

1/28

Grigor'ev in Orenburg, 1851-1862: Russian Orientalism in the Service of Empire?Author(s): Nathaniel KnightSource: Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 74-100Published by:Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696905.

Accessed: 18/11/2013 13:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Slavic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.62.56.201 on Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:22:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696905?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2696905?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/28

Grigor'evnOrenburg, 851-1862: RussianOrientalismnthe Service ofEmpire?NathanielKnight

In December 1851, VasiliiVasil'evichGrigor'ev, ne of Russia'sforemostspecialists n the history nd languagesof CentralAsia and the Near East,setoff rom t. Petersburg obuild a new career s an administratorntheturbulent orderlands round the city fOrenburg.Grigor'ev's easonsfor eaving etersburg erebothprofessionalndpersonal.Unable to findanacceptablepositionneither heeducational ystemr the tate ureau-cracy,Grigor'ev, ormerly professor t the Richelieu Lycee in Odessa,had subsisted or everalyears s assistantditor f theournalof the Min-istry f InternalAffairs,nd by 1851, with ittleprospect for advance-ment,he was willing o look further fieldforemployment.'Grigor'ev'sbiographer lso alludes to personal problems-a painful onflictwithclose friend hatmade his presencein St. Petersburg npleasant fnotunbearable.2But whatevermayhave been driving imfrom etersburg, hereweremotivesdrawingGrigor'ev o Orenburg. Deeply patriotic,Grigor'evwasferventlyevoted to the idea that cience shouldexist,notmerely s anend in itself, ut forthegreatergood of the nation.As a memberof thenewly ounded Russian GeographicalSociety,Grigor'ev ad been at theforefrontf a fierce truggle gainst tsethnicallyGerman eaderswhowere accused ofsubordinatingheneeds of Russia to a universalisticci-This articlewas written hile n residenceat the Kennan Institute orAdvanced RussianStudies nd the Harriman nstitute t Columbia University.am tremendously ratefuloboth nstitutionsor heir upport. arlier ersionswerepresented t the 1997 annual con-ference f theAmericanAssociation or heAdvancementf SlavicStudies nSeattle, heColumbiaUniversitylavicSeminar, nd theMarylandWorkshopnRussianStudies.Mythanks o out to all the participantsn these essions or heir timulatingomments. amparticularlyndebted to Paul Werth orhisclose reading nd incisive riticism nd to thetwo nonymous eferees t SlavicReview or heirhelpful uggestions.1. Grigor'ev'sack of success n finding mploymentan be attributedn part to thelack of appropriatepositions universityhairs n Orientalstudieswere few nd farbe-tween n the1840s),to academicpolitics, nd toGrigor'ev'smpulsive nd often brasivepersonality.e had decided toresignhisposition nOdessa inanticipation fan appoint-mentto a vacantchair n eastern anguages and historyt Moscow University. is planswerethwarted, owever, ytherivalryetweenhispatron,CountStroganov,he head oftheMoscowEducationalDistrict,nd the minister f education,Sergei Uvarov,whode-clinedtoapprove he ppointment. fter isrejection,Grigor'ev efused o resumehis po-sition nOdessa. Subsequent hopes for chair at St. Petersburg niversity ere similarlydashed. For an account of Grigor'ev's ribulations n the ob market, ee N. P. Barsukov,Zhizn'i rudy . P Pogodina St. Petersburg, 888-1906) 7:313-24.2. The basic biographicalsource on Grigor'ev s N. I. Veselovskii, asiliiVasilbevichGrigor'vpo ego is'mam trudamSt. Petersburg, 887). In addition to a biographicalnar-rative, eselovskii's ork ontains xtensive xcerpts romGrigor'ev's ersonalcorrespon-dence and publishedwork,makingt an indispensable ource of primarymaterial.SlavicReview 9, no. 1 (Spring2000)

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/28

Grigor'v n Orenburg 75entific genda.3Accepting n administrativeosition n Orenburgwas away orGrigor'evo realizethe principles hathe had trumpeted o loudlyas a leader ofthe "Russian action"n Petersburgcademic politics.Plac-ing his knowledge f the history,anguages, nd cultures f CentralAsiaat the disposalof the Russian mperial dministration,e would help tocreatean efficient ystem f governancethat would be a credit to themight nd glory fRussia.Grigor'ev's ecisionto leave Petersburg,nd the eleven yearsof ser-vicethat ollowed, rovides, t first lance,a graphic llustrationf the n-terdependence etween cholarly nowledge ndimperial ower.Assuch,his examplefits eatly nto the paradigm f mutuallynablingknowledgeand power pelledout byEdwardSaid inhis nfluential orkOrientalism.Grigor'ev'sdealswerefoundedon an implicitssumption hatknowledgewasthekey o successful dministration:fwe knowhowAsiatics hink, isreasoningwent, henwe knowhowto govern hem.As Said puts t: "knowl-edge of subjectraces or Orientals swhatmakestheirmanagement asyandprofitable; nowledge ivespower,morepowerrequiresmoreknowl-edge, and so on in an increasinglyrofitable ialectic f nformationndcontrol.4Said,therefore, ould seemtoprovide n ideal frameworkorunder-standing he linksbetweenGrigor'ev'sntellectual ursuits nd his pro-fessional ervice.Or does he?Amoment f caution s perhaps n order. tis hardly n exaggeration o note that he discussions urroundingaid'sworkhave fundamentallyedefined the concept of orientalism tself:whether r not one acceptsthepremises nderlyinghenewparadigm,thas become nearly mpossible ospeakorwrite bout orientalismolely sthe body of western cholarship n Asiawithout lso evoking magesof aspecific ype f mperialdiscourse hatfunctions o create and marginal-ize the degraded"other."As a land withmore than tsfair hareof "oth-ers," heRussian mpire s a clearand obviousfieldnwhich oapply aid'sprinciples ndmethodology.ut for ll its mpact lsewhere, aid's modelof orientalism nd therichdiscussionsthas stimulated aveevoked sur-prisinglyittle esponse n studiesof theRussianempire.5 hispaper at-

3. On the strugglen the GeographicalSociety, ee NathanielKnight, Science,Em-pire and Nationality: thnographyn theRussian GeographicalSociety, 845-1855," inJane Burbank nd David L. Ransel, ds., mpffialussia:NewHistoriesor heEmpireBloom-ington,1998), 108-41. See also P. P. Semenov (Tian-Shanskii),storiia oluvekovoieia-tel'nostimperatorskogousskogoGeograficheskogobshchestva,845-1895 (St. Petersburg,1896), vol. 1; and L. S. Berg, Vsesoiuznoeeograficheskoebshchestvoa sto let Moscow-Leningrad, 946). Grigor'ev's iews re bestrepresented y widely irculatedmemoran-dum thathe wrote n 1848 nresponseto a new charter roposedbythe eadership fthesociety. he completedocument can be found nRossiiskii osudarstvennyistoricheskiiarkhivRGIA),f.853, op. 1,ed. kh.10 (ProektnovogoustavaRGO izamechaniiaknemu).Excerpts republished nVeselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigor'v,5-96.4. EdwardW. Said, OrientalismNewYork, 978), 36.5. Scholarship n non-Russian ationalities roducedduring heColdWarwas neverlacking n sympathyorthevictims f Russianand latercommunistmperial ppression.See, for xample,EdwardAllworth,d., Central sia:A CenturyfRussianRule New York,1967); Helene Carrered'Encausse,TheDecline f n EmpireNew York, 979); and Robert



4/28

76 Slavic Reviewtempts oaddresstheapplicabilitynd utilityf theorientalism aradigmin the Russian mperial contextthrough n examinationof Grigor'ev'sideas and careeras a scholar of theeast and an imperial dministrator.Orientalism,s described y aid,denotes n all-encompassingiscur-siveformationhroughwhichEuropeimagines, nows,nddominates helands and peoples of the east. The taskof orientalismsone of represen-tation. he Orient tself, ccording oSaid, s a projection, metaphoricalstageaffixed o the European consciousness nwhich richcast ofchar-acters-pharaohs, sphinxes,geniison flying arpets, ultanswiththeirharems-embody the exoticism,hemystery,nd the dangerofthe east.6To penetrate hismysterys the taskoforientalists, secular priesthoodwhoseauthorityerives rommasteryf arcaneknowledge nd theabilitytodistill, ut of the bewilderingomplexityf theeast,usable truth. heorientalist's truth"mustneverbe confusedwith ndigenousreality:herealeast, sexperiencedby ts nhabitants,emains naccessible, oncealedbeyondthevastepistemologicaldividethatgives ifeto orientalist is-course. Butwhilethe Orientmaybe an illusion, hepowergeneratedbyorientalist nowledgesrealand inescapable.Ateveryevel,the creationofalterityhrough rientalist iscourse s inseparablefromdomination.Knowledge f the Orient s never nnocent;oriental otherness"s nevermerelyn assertion f difference. ather s it the markofsubordination,throughwhich heuniversallynferior other" mbodies thefullpanoplyof traits nworthyfcivilizedman. Thus orientalismsbotha productofand a precondition orEuropean imperialism.Said's viewshave been bothcontroversialnd influential.Many nowflourishingrends n postmodern nd postcolonial tudiesbear the clearimprint f hisideas, althoughone wouldnot attribute heir ppearanceentirelyoSaid.7Naturally,aid's Orientalismas attractedtsfair hare ofConquest, d., TheLastEmpire: ationalityndthe ovietutureStanford, 986). Butfew fthesewriters erewilling o place theRussian mperial xperience nthecontext f com-prehensive heoreticalritique fwesternmperialism s a whole.More recentwritersf-ten evokeSaid without xplicitlyddressinghe questionof his applicabilityntheRussiancontext.See, for example, the set of articlesbyKatya Hokanson, Daniel Brower, ndThomas Barrett hat ppeared inRussianReview 3,no. 3 (1994). See also Susan Layton,"The Creation f n Imaginative aucasianGeography,"lavicReview5,no. 3 (Fall1986):470-85, but note Layton'srather different ositionon Said in "NineteenthCenturyMythologiesf Caucasian Savagery,"n Daniel R. Brower nd EdwardJ.Lazzerini, ds.,Russia'sOrient:mperialorderlandsndPeoples,700-1917 (Bloomington, 997),81- 82.Abriefdiscussionof the applicability f Said can also be found n the conclusionto YuriSlezkine,Arctic irrors:ussia nd the mall eoples f heNorthIthaca,1994).6. Said,Orientalism,3.7. In anthropology,or xample,Said's deas have helpedto undermine he assump-tionofobjectivitynd disinterestednesshathad traditionallyroundedthe ethnographicendeavor, eadingpostmodernnthropologistsna challenging ut nevitablyutile earchforways o produce textswithout uthors.A seminalwork n thisregard s the collectionbyJames liffordnd GeorgeE. Marcus, ds., WritingultureBerkeley, 986). Historiansinfluenced ySaid have turned heir ritical ttentiono groupswhosevoices and experi-ences have supposedly een silencedbytheworkingsf Orientalist iscourse.The subal-tern tudies roup sparticularlyrominentn this egard. or an overviewhat elates hework f these cholarsbacktoSaid,see GyanPrakash, Writingost-Orientalististoriesof the Third World:Perspectivesrom ndian Historiography,"omparativetudiesn Soci-



5/28

GrigorbvnOrenburg 77critics swell.Mostpredictably,cholars f oriental anguages nd historywhosee in his argument threat o the egitimacyf their ndeavorhaveprotested ociferously.8n addition, cholarsmoresympathetico Said'sundertaking ave advanceda varietyfcritical esponses: ome havefo-cusedon theoreticalnconsistencies, hile thershave suggested heneedtomodifyaid'smodel nlight fregional pecificity.9hisessayproceedsinbothof thesedirections: questionboth thegeneraltheoretical rame-workof Said'smodel and its pecific pplicabilityn theRussiancontext.Applied to Russia,the paradigmof orientalismmmediately aisesquestions.Mostobviously,he stark ichotomy etweenOrient nd Occi-dentaround whichSaid's analysishingestransformsn the Russiancon-text nto nawkwardriptych:hewest, ussia, heeast.Russia, fterll,wasnotonly he subjectof orientalist iscourse, ut also itsobject.Through-outthe sixteenthnd seventeenth entury ussiawasdepicted nwesternliteratures thequintessentialriental espotism.'0 ndeven after here-forms f PetertheGreat,Russia's cceptance nto thecommunityf civi-lizedwestern ationswasconditional tbest ndappliedonly otheextentthatRussianeliteswere able to shed theirnative raditionsnd assimilateintoa pan-Europeanculture faristocracy. henRussian cholars urnedto the east twasoftenwith sharp wareness f their wnsupposedback-wardness nd inferiorityn the face of thegrandcivilizationfBritain,France, nd Germany. ow wouldthis wareness hapeRussianvisions ftheeast and the dynamics f powerunderlying ussian mperial ule?Aboveandbeyond he pecificityftheRussian ontext,heparadigmoforientalismeavesunresolved uestions bout theconcretemechanismsand relationships nderlyinghe intersection fknowledge nd power.Said presents rientalisms an "enablingdiscourse" imultaneously e-rivedfrom nd productive f imperialdomination."Buthowdoes thisdiscourse unction henembedded nthevicissitudesf theconcretehis-toricalmoment ndthe diosyncrasiesf ndividual houghtnd behavior?Is discourse estiny,n inescapablewebof ssumptionodeeplyngrainedety nd History2,no. 2 (April1990): 383-408; RosalindO'Hanlon andDavidWashbrook,"Afterrientalism: ulture,Criticismnd Politicsn theThirdWorld,"Comparativetudiesin SocietyndHistory4, no. 1 (January 992): 141-67.8. See,for xample,BernardLewis,slam ndtheWestNewYork, 993). For Said'sre-sponse, ee EdwardW. Said, "Orientalism,n Afterword,"aritan 4,no. 3 (Winter 995):32-59.9. Critiques fSaid from theoretical erspectivencludeJamesClifford,On Ori-entalism,"n his The redicamentfCulture:wentieth-enturythnography,iterature,ndArt(Cambridge,Mass.,1988); and CatherineGimelliMartin, Orientalismnd theEthnog-rapher:Said,Herodotusand the Discourseof Alterity,"riticism: Quarterlyor iteratureand theArts2,no. 4 (Fall 1990): 511-29. For critical iews rom regionalperspective,eeCarolA. Breckenridgend Petervan der Veer, ds., Orientalismnd the ostcolonialredica-ment:erspectivesn SouthAsia (Philadelphia,1993); and Arif irlik, ChineseHistoryndtheQuestionofOrientalism," istorynd Theory5,no. 4 (December 1996): 96-118.10. On western arlymoderntravel ccountsof Russia, ee LloydEason Berry ndRobertCrummey,ds., Rudeand Barbarous ingdom: ussia in theAccountsf Sixteenth-CenturynglishVoyagersMadison,1968); MarshallPoe, "APeople orn o lavery":he arlyModern riginsf hedea of"Enslavedussia" Ithaca,forthcoming).11. Said,Orientalism,2 13; Layton, Nineteenth enturyMythologiesf CaucasianSavagery,"1-82.



6/28

78 Slavic Reviewas to appear invisible o thesubject?Or can the ndividual ranscend hehegemonicgripof discursive ractices o offermeaningfullternativeso(or simply o act outsideof) the dominant aradigm f empire?And evenassuming constant nd direct inkbetween cholarly nowledge nd im-perialpractice, ow, pecificallynd concretely, o the esoteric ursuits forientalism urther he nterests nd agendas of the mperial tate?Grigor'ev's ervice nOrenburgprovides n opportunevantagepointfromwhich o considerboththe specificityfRussianorientalismnd theconcretemechanisms overning he ntersectionfscholarly nowledgeand imperial ractice. n consideringGrigor'ev's areer, hree reas are ofparticularnterest: irst,hevision fRussian rientalismsa scholarly is-cipline ndbodyof knowledge hathe derived rom istrainingnd earlycareer; econd,thewaysnwhichGrigor'ev's pecializedknowledge unc-tionedwithin he cultural nd institutionalontext fimperial dminis-tration; nd,finally,he ttitudes nd policies owardhecolonial "other"-in this ase Kazakh nomads-that Grigor'ev erivedfromhis ntellectualbackground nd implemented s an administrator.AnOrient'sOrientalismBornin St. Petersburgn 1816, VasiliiVasil'evichGrigor'ev alls quarelywithin heage cohortoften onsideredthe first eneration f the ntelli-gentsia-youngmenwhocame of ge inthe1830s, ormed hecore ofthefamous lavophile ndWesternizerroups nthe1840s, nd, n somecases,playeda guidingrolein the GreatReforms fthe ate 1850sand 1860s.12Like hisbetterknown ontemporaries, rigor'evwas drivenbyan obses-sivepreoccupationwith heproblemofRussia'srelationshipo the"west,"a preoccupation rising rom he tensionbetween he desire toviewRus-sia as a bearerofuniversal enlightenment"nd the need to assertRus-sia's culturaldistinctivenesssamobytnost').orGrigor'ev, ussian orien-talism s a fieldof science and a scholarly ocationprovided vehicletoreconcilethesedivergentmperatives.

In theyearsbeforehisdeparture o Orenburg,Grigor'ev ormulateda conceptionoforientalism, otonlyas an abstract earch for cientifictruth, ut also as a responseto thechallengesposed bytheproblemofnarodnost'-Russia's uestto define ts national essence.WhileGrigor'evrefrained rom penlyembracing singlephilosophical ystem, is deasaboutnationality ereperfectlyn line with heassumptions fRussianSchellingianismnvogueat thetime.'3For ntellectuals fthe1830s,na-12. MartinMalia,"What s the ntelligentsia?"n RichardPipes, ed. TheRussian ntel-ligentsiaNew York, 961), 1-18; Nicholas Riasanovsky,heParting f heWays: ovffnment

and the ducated ublic n Russia,1801-1855 (Oxford,1976).13. On the mpactof Schellingianphilosophyn Russia, ee P. N.Miliukov,GlavnyetecheniiausskoistoricheskoiysliSt. Petersburg, 913), 278-300; MartinMalia, AlexanderHerzen nd theBirthfRussian ocialismCambridge,Mass,1961), chap.5.Narodnost'refersof courseonly o theethnic s opposed to thepolitical imensions f"nationality."deas ofnativeness, ational pirit,nd national tyle ome closer,perhaps, o expressingtsrangeof meanings.For discussionof narodnost', ee Nathaniel Knight, Ethnicity,ationalityand theMasses:Narodnost'nd Modernityn mperialRussia,"nYanniKotsonis ndDavidHoffmann, ds., RussianModernityLondon, 1999); and LaurenG. Leighton, Narodnost'



7/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 79tions were organic beings, ivingorganismsundergoing a set ifecyclefromsavage infancy o decrepit old age. The goal of the nation was to manifestfully ts unique spirit nd in so doing to fulfill he world historicalmissioninstilledupon it by Providence. For Russians thismeant a passionate questto findand cultivateRussian samobytnost' in all areas of life.Science was no less a field forthe expression of thenational spirit hanliteratureand the arts, nd throughouthis career, Grigor'evdevoted him-selfwithpassion and vigor to the ideal of autonomous Russian scholar-ship. He never ceased to be repulsed bythe Russian impulse to bow downbefore the superior knowledge and experience of the west. "Russia andthe Western states,"he wrote in 1847,

developedand existundercompletely iverse onditions,nd therefore,regardless f the demandsofethnic plemennogo]ifference, hat s ap-propriate nd timely here an be forus entirelyntimely nd inappro-priate, nd,consequently, otonlyuselessbutharmful. ussia,whilenotalienatingtself rom hewest .. must, onetheless, evelopandadvanceto thecommongoalsof humanityndependently,elyingn itsownna-tive rinciples, hich redifferenthanthoseofthewest.... Thisperiodof nfatuationwith hewest]has outlived tstime.Forus the periodhasset n ofrational elf-awarenessnd autonomousactivity.'4Orientalism played an integral part in Grigor'ev's vision of an au-tonomous Russian science. Russian scholars were uniquely positioned, he

felt,not only to excel at the studyof eastern languages and history,butalso to approach these subjects froma distinctperspective. Unlike in thewest,where orientalismwas, above all, the studyof the distant and exotic"other," n Russia the studyof the eastwas the studyof Russia itself. Whois closer to Asia than us?" Grigor'evwrote. "Which of the European tribespreserved in itselfmore of the Asiatic element than the Slavs,who werethe last to leave theirprimitivehomeland?"' 5Orientalism in Russia served two essential functions. First, by study-ing the history,anguages, and cultures of the eastern peoples withinandsurrounding the Russian empire withwhom Russians had interacted forcenturies, orientalists would produce fundamentallynew insightsaboutRussia itself.'6 Second, Russian orientalism could offsetwestern culturalas a ConceptofRussianRomanticism,"n hisRussianRomanticism:wo ssaysThe Hague,r975),43-107.14. RGIA,f.853, op. 1,ed. kh. 12 (ZametkiGrigor'eva b izdaniiZhurnala Severnoeobozrenie). These commentswere takenfrom prospectuswritten yGrigor'ev orthejournal Severnoe bozrenie,hichhe publishedtogetherwithhis friendP. S. Savel'ev in1848-49.15. Quoted in Mark Bassin,"The RussianGeographical Society, he AmurEpoch'and theGreatSiberianExpedition1855-1863,"Annalsof heAssociationfAmfficaneog-raphers3, no. 2 (1983): 243.16. For a typicalexample of Grigor'ev's pproach, see 0 kuficheskikhonetakhnakhodimykhRossii pribaltiiskikhtranakhak stochniklia drevneisheitechestvennoistorii(Odessa, 1842), laterrepublishednthe collectionRossiia Aziia:Sbornikzsledovaniistateipo istorii,tnografligeografli,apisannykhraznoe remia V GrigortevymSt. Petersburg,1876), 107- 69. In this study,Grigor'ev xhaustivelyescribes hoards of CentralAsiancoins datingfrom he ninth otheeleventh enturies ound n the territoryf EuropeanRussiaand the Baltic ands.On the basisofthisnumismatic videncehe proposes severaltheories bout trading ctivities, aterial ife, nd eventhe nationalcharacter f thean-



8/28

80 SlavicReviewdomination by spreading knowledge about the civilizationsof the east andby creating a discipline that could stand proud alongside the highestachievementsof itswesterncounterparts.As early as 1837, Grigor'evwrote:The disseminationndstrengtheningn Russiaof asternearning,whichmakesthe horizonsofour knowledge nd understanding roaderthanthat f thinkersnd publicfigures fwestern urope,wouldforceus notto bowdownbeforethe results f their hought nd activityo submis-sivelynd subservientlys we do in the present imeout of necessity;twouldgiveus autonomy nd, serving s a counterweightowestern rin-ciplesthat epress ur nationaldevelopment, ouldfacilitatets trength-ening ndrapidprogress.... The bestmeans tocounteract he nfluenceofthewest s torely n the study f theeast.'7

Clearly,then, Grigor'ev's interest n the eastern "other" was part of abroader endeavor ofnational self-definition nd national self-assertionnthe face of western cultural domination. But to what extent did Russianorientalism as a project of nation building drawupon and facilitate n ide-ology and practice of imperial domination? A fundamental assumptionrunning through all of Grigor'ev'sactivitieswas the idea thatorientalismshould serve. But the object of orientalism's service was not alwaysclear.Grigor'ev's deal ofservice to Russia representsan intermediary tance be-tween the model of service to the autocrat embodied in the "OfficialNa-tionality" fNicholas I and the vision ofservice to the "narod" thatwouldbecome the guiding impulse of the liberal and radical intelligentsia.Onthe one hand, Russia, forGrigor'ev,was an abstract autonomous entity,whose spiritualessence transcended the person ofthe emperor.'8 On theother hand, Grigor'evsaw no contradiction between the ideal of "serviceto Russia" and the realityof service within the state bureaucracy. In thissense his viewsreflect the values and ideals of the "enlightened bureau-crats" of 1840 who saw specialized knowledge as the key to enhancingRussia's prosperity nd well-beingwithinthebasic framework f the auto-cratic state.'9Butwhile Grigor'ev'svision of Russian orientalismundoubt-cient Slavs.A glance through he bibliographyfGrigor'ev's orks evealsnumerous x-amples ofsimilar ndeavors.See Veselovskii, asiliiVasilfevichrigorfev,85-0105. Similarexamples an be found n theworks f Grigor'ev'slose friendnd colleague,P. S. Savel'ev.See V V Grigor'ev, hizn' trudy S. Savel'evaSt.Petersburg,861), 178-201.17. Veselovskii, asiliiVasilfevichrigorev,3. There are clear parallelsbetweentheviews fGrigor'evn 1837 and the deasofSergeiUvarov, articularlysexpressed n hisfa-mous1809 proposalfor n AsiaticAcademyn Russia.See Cynthia . Whittaker,The Im-pact of the OrientalRenaissancein Russia:The Case of SergeiUvarov," ahrbiicherurGeschichtesteuropas6, no. 4 (1978).18. In this espect,Grigor'ev'siewswere loseto thoseofMikhail ogodinwithwhomhe was acquaintedand withwhom he maintained, orthemostpart,good relations.Onthe varieties f "Official ationality,"ee Nicholas Riasanovsky,icholas and Officiala-tionalitynRussia,1825-1855 (Berkeley, 959), 124- 40.19. On theenlightened ureaucrats,ee W.Bruce Lincoln, n theVanguardfReform(DeKalb, 1982). Grigor'evwasassociatedwith heenlightened ureaucrats, oththroughhisservice n theMinistryf nternalAffairsnderLev Perovskii,nd throughhispartic-ipation n theRussianGeographicalSociety.While Grigor'evwas closely llied withtheMiliutin rothersn the truggle ith he"German"action, orrespondence rom hetimeofhismovetoOrenburg howshostilerelationswithNikolaiMiliutin pparentlyn con-



9/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 81edlypresupposed hat he fieldwould make tsknowledge vailableto thestate administration,hereis littleevidence to suggeston his part anopenly xpressed deology f mperial xpansion.To be sure, t s possibleto find n hiswritingshe familiar otionofRussia's "civilizing ission"-bringing he gifts f civilizationothe solated and undevelopedpeoplesof the east.20 utevenin the dea of a civilizingmission here s nothingthat equires hysical onquest: heborders ftheempire nderNicholascontainedmore thanenoughhuman material o provide orRussia's elf-realization s the bearer of enlightenment.ButwhileGrigor'ev'srientalismmaynot have requiredphysical on-quest, t s still ossible o conceiveof t as a type f "conceptual onquest,"a cultural ppropriation f the histories f easterncultures o be recon-textualized nto a narrativef Russiandomination.2'Muchas, accordingto Said, theFrench ppropriated he historyfAncientEgypt opositthestarting ointfor teleologyeading toward hevictoryfrationalityndenlightenmentn theFrench Revolution, nd the British nd Germansappropriated hehistoryfAncient ndia to construct creationmythortheAryan ace,so Russian rientalism ould appropriate he history f tseastern ubjects nd neighbors o build a narrative nderpinning ussia'scultural omination nd colonialexpansion.22On closerconsideration, owever, oubts ariseregarding his nter-pretation f Russian orientalism. o be sure,Russian historians f thenineteenth entury ftendid produce narrativesnwhichthe growth fthe Russian empire s presented s an "organic"process by whichnon-Russianpeoples werepainlesslybsorbedas theempire nexorably preadacross thegreatEurasianexpansesbequeathed to itby destiny.23n theotherhand, one could hardly isputethat vents uch as the rise and fallof theKhazarand Volga Bolgarempires, heascendancyof theGoldenHorde,cultural nteractionnd tradewith hepeoplesoftheCentralAsiansteppe actually id havea significantmpacton the course of Russianhis-nectionwith he atter's xcessive westernizing"endencies. ee, for xample,Veselovskii,Vasilii asil'evichrigorev,16,119.20. Grigor'ev ddresses this issue most explicitlyn Ob otnoshenii ossii k Vostoku(Odessa, 1840). In general,however, he themeofa civilizingmissiondoes notoccupyaprominent lace in hisearly cholarly orks.21. The term onceptualonquestsborrowed, lbeitwith ratherdifferentonnota-tion, rom hework f FrancineHirsch.See her"The SovietUnion as a Work-in-Progress:Ethnographers nd theCategoryNationalityn the 1926,1937, and 1939 Censuses," lavicReview 6, no. 2 (Summer1997): 256.22. Said,Orientalism,6-88; SheldonPollock, Deep Orientalism:Noteson Sanskritand Power Beyond theRaj," n Breckenridge nd van der Veer,eds., Orientalismnd thePostcolonialredicament.or a discussion long these ines n theRussian ontext, ee KatyaHokanson, "Literarymperialism,Narodnost'nd Pushkin's nventionof the Caucasus,"RussianReview 3, no. 3 (1994): 336-52.23. Seymour ecker, The MuslimEast n NineteenthCentury ussianPopularHis-toriography,"entral sianSurvey , no. 3/4 (1986): 25-47; Willard underland, Makingthe Empire:Colonists nd Colonization n Russia,1800-1850s" (Ph.D. diss., ndianaUni-versity,997); MarkBassin, "Turner, olov'evand the FrontierHypothesis': he Nation-alistSignification f Open Spaces,"Journal fModern istory 5,no. 3 (September1993):473 -511. Fora typical xample,see V 0. Kliuchevskii,urs usskoistoriiMoscow,1908),1:23-26.



10/28

82 SlavicReviewtory.s itreally urprising,herefore,hatRussian cholarswould attemptto investigate hese topics using the tools providedby orientalism-nu-mismatics,rchaeology, thnology, extual riticism,nd so on? Must theknowledge roduced by uch endeavorsbe inherentlyinkedto an ideol-ogy of expansion and exploitation f the imperial "other"?24 oreover,narrativesf"manifest estiny" nd "organic xpansion"had little eed tocreate mythical enealogies rooted in the areas to be absorbed. If any-thing he mostpowerful nd necessarymyth n the discourseof organicexpansionwasthemyth f emptiness, myth irectly ndermined ytheempirical esearch f Russianorientalists.The visionof Russian orientalism s a field of science articulated yGrigor'ev riorto hisdeparture oOrenburgcentered, s we have seen,on enhancing heprideand prestige f the Russiannationvis-'a-vis est-ernEurope. Grigor'ev's wn scholarshipn thisperiod reflects he ethosof ntellectualutonomy,trictmpiricism,ndmethodological igor hathe believedwouldearn Russianorientalism niversal espect nd recog-nition.25 yrealizing hese deals,he believed, rientalism ould performitsgreatest ervice o thenation.His work,which ocuses n historical op-ics and on interpretationsfesoteric ources, hows ittle oncernfor ep-resentinghecontemporaryother" nd creating hecognitive pparatusfor domination.By entering he imperial administration, rigor'evwasbreakingnewground,notonly nhisown career,butalso in terms fthepossibilitiesf Russianorientalismnservice fempire.Orenburg:Power andPoliticson the mperialFrontierFor an accomplished cholar ikeGrigor'ev, ccepting post nOrenburgwasno small sacrifice.n manyways,Orenburg n the 1850swas, despiteitsunique strategic ignificance, typical rovincial ackwater. erchedon thehighbankof the UralRivermarkinghedividinginebetweenEu-ropeandAsiaanddominatedby mposing ortress alls, owers,ndgates

24. The very dea ofseeingknowledge s inherentlyinkedto a particulardeologyand practice s problematic.As David Ludden pointsout in the case of ndia, knowledgegeneratedbyorientalism ould provide rich ode of material or heconstruction f na-tional histories ftenmobilized n directoppositionto European dominance.See DavidLudden, "Orientalistmpiricism: ransformationsfColonial Knowledge,"n Brecken-ridge ndvan der Veer, ds., Orientalismndthe ostcolonialredicament,52.25. Grigor'ev'smajor scholarly orksn theperiodbeforehis movetoOrenburg n-clude: Opisanie uficheskikhonet veka,naidennykhRiazanskoi uberniiSt. Petersburg,1841); 0 dostovernostiarlikov,annykhhanami olotoirdy usskomuukhovenstvuMoscow,1842); 0 kuficheskykhonetakhakhodimykhRossii pribaltiiskikhtranakh,ak stochnikliadrevneisheitechestvennoistoriiOdessa, 1842); "O mestopolozhenii araia,stolitsi olotoiOrdy," hurnalMinisterstvanutrennykhel, 845,nos.2,3, 4;EvreiskieeligioznyeektyRossii(St. Petersburg, 847); "TsariVospora Kimmeriiskogo,reimushchestvennoo sovre-mennymmpamiatnikammonetam," hurnalMinisterstvanutrennykhel, ol. 36,pp. 110-46, 267-96, 413-83; and "Oblastnye elikorusskielova vostochnogoproiskhozhdeniia:zamechaniiak'Opytu'oblastnogoVelikorusskogolovaria,"zvestiiamperatorskogokademiinaukpootdeleniiuusskogoazyka slovesnosti,ol. 1 (1852). Most of these rticleswere aterrepublished n a singlevolumeentitledRossiia Aziia:Sbornikssledovaniistatei o istorii,etnografligeografii,apisannykhraznoe remia V GrigortevymSt.Petersburg,876).



11/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 83thatwerelocked shut each night,Orenburgexuded an air of barracksregimentationnd provincial hilistinism. s one observerdescribed t:"Orenburg annot boastof a high evel of ntellectualife nd needs go-ing beyondgluttonynd the external,purelymaterial omforts f life.There is no public ibrary.ournals nd newspapers re little ead. Thereare still ewer ooks,and no one likesto read them.People with ntellec-tual needs are hated and scorned."26or a scholarwhosestudies equiredconstant ccess to a wide varietyf contemporaryiterature,manuscripts,and referencematerials,moving o a place like Orenburgmeant, ssen-tially, heend of an academiccareer as itwastraditionallyefined.On the other hand, Orenburg presentedopportunities.Orenburgwasthe administrativeenter f a vast nd diverse erritory,he finalout-postof Russian mperialpower longa turbulentnd ill-definedrontier.The citytself ashometoa largeTatar olony,which arried ut extensivetrade withCentralAsia and evenChina.27Within heterritoryf Oren-burgprovinceivedtheUral Cossack host,nomadic Bashkirs,nd a grow-ingpopulationofRussian ettlers. eyondtheUral Rivern thevast teppebetweenthe Caspian Sea and the mountainsof theAltai,the Kazakhs,known o Russians t the time s theKirgiz, arried n theirnomadicmi-grations.28ndfinally,eyondthe Kazakhs nthefertile alleys fthe Syr'Daru and Amu Daru rivers, erethe ndependentCentralAsian khanatesofKhiva,Kokand,and Bukhara.When Grigor'ev rrived n Orenburg,Russianpower nthe CentralAsiansteppeswas still uiteweakand thinlyspread.Whilethe threeKazakhhordeswerenominallyubjects ftheem-pire, allegiancescontinuedto be fluid nd uncertain.Uprisings nd dis-turbanceswerecommonoccurrences, nd memorieswerestillfresh fdevastating azakhraids nwhichRussian ettlers eresometimes eizedto be sold as slaves nKhivaorBukhara.29orthe mperial dministration,therefore,hetaskswere lear: stablish nd maintain rder n the teppes,clarifynd reinforceheallegiancesofthe Kazakhs o theempire, xpandtrade relationsbetweenRussia and Central Asia, and reduce the per-ceived threat osed bythe ndependentkhanates.ForGrigor'ev,ervicenOrenburgposed twodistinct ut nterrelatedchallenges:first,o use theopportunitiesvailable to enhance hisknowl-edgeofthepeoplesofCentralAsiathrough irect nd extendedencoun-ters; econd,to applyhis specializedknowledge o shape administrative

26. K. Belavin,Orenburg: eografichesko-statisticheskiicherkOrenburg,1891), 41.27. On theOrenburgTatars, ee G. G. Kosach, A RussianCity etweenTwo Conti-nents:Orenburg'sTatarMinoritynd State Power,"n NuritSchleifman, d., Russiaat aCrossroads:istory, emorynd PoliticalracticeLondon, 1998).28. The confusion urroundingheterms irgiz nd Kazakh or Kirgiz-Kaisaks theywere often eferred oin the nineteenth entury) eemstohave stemmed rom heneedto ascribe ethnicityn a context n whichthe concept tself ad no clear meaning.Kirgizwas, apparently, genericterm orpastoralnomad. See Daniel Brower, Islamand Eth-nicity: ussianColonial Policy nTurkestan,"n Brower nd Lazzerini, ds.,Russia Orient,128-29.29. V.Grigor'ev,The RussianPolicyregarding entralAsia: An Historical ketch,"in E. Schuyler,Turkistan: otes fa Journeyn Russian Turkistan, hokand, ukhara ndKuldja (New York, 877), 2:410-14. See also Allworth, entral sia.



12/28

84 Slavic Reviewpolicy for the benefitof all concerned. His dual roles-acquiring knowl-edge and wieldingpower-were highlightedvividly n his first ssignmentin which he was sentto a remote forepost n the steppe to study he Kazakhwayof ifeand investigate lleged abuses by the leaders of the Inner Horde.In a letterto his friend,Pavel Savel'ev, Grigor'evwrote:

Once I finish he nvestigation.. I will gain ride to the Horde forthepurposeofstudyingt n all itsdetails n orderto latergivemyopinionon how to arrange hings nce and for ll in accordance with heviews fthe governmentnd for he benefit fthe nomads themselves.... Boththe nvestigationnd the ssignment ostudy heHorde will cquaintme,I hope, with heKirgiz, heirmanners, nd the steppeway f ife n gen-eral,quite thoroughly,hichwill ervewell .. forvarioushistoricalwrit-ings bout CentralAsia.30After everalweeks, however, Grigor'evhad become absorbed with theaccouterments and rituals of power in the steppe. He wrote to Savel'ev:You know,GenghisKhan hasnothing n me. I have acquireda magnifi-centKirgizhat. I have letdownthe ear flapsand grown omething e-sembling beard. sit na robeand, n such splendor, aze at my eet nthe trembling escendants fthisfearsome onqueror,thevariousSul-tans fthefamousBukeevHorde.0, a state ouncilor nthe teppemeansa greatdeal Letanyonewho wants o see all the might fthisrank ookupon me.31

Was Grigor'ev the administratorovershadowing Grigor'ev the ethnogra-pher? Actually, twas precisely the theme of power thatbrought the twotogether. Grigor'ev's ethnographic interests centered on what mightbetermed the culture ofpower-both the concrete structures hroughwhichpowerwas wielded on thesteppe and, especially,thesubjectiveperceptionsof the nature ofpower specificto the "Asiatic" n general and the Kazakhsin particular. By basing its actions on an understanding of power in thesteppe, Grigor'ev felt,Russian administration could defend its interests,bring peace and prosperityto the steppe, and win the loyaltyof the no-mads. Orientalism could make a valuable contribution to the empire byprovidingsuch an understanding.But for orientalism to serve as the foundation for a new enlightenedadministration, t had to functionwithin verydifferentmilieu ofpower-that of the militarybureaucratic apparatus of empire whose authorityGrigor'ev personified. Given the relentlesslyhierarchical nature of Rus-sian imperial power,itwas natural that the highestofficial n the region-in thiscase theOrenburg governor-general-would cast an indelible markon the atmosphere of the administration and the fortunesofhis subordi-nates. For Grigor'ev,the character and inclinations of the governorwere

30. Veselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigorev,17.31. Ibid., 118.Grigor'evwrote o NikolaiNadezhdin n a similar ein: "I willtellyouas an example,from heplace where am now tanding or ourhundredversts n all sidesyouwillnot find single tate ouncillor; nd to the east you could go all theway o theempireof China andyou stillwillnot find state ouncillor, lthough hey ay hat n theempire of China theyhave a few."Rossiiskii osudarstvennyirkhiv iteratury iskusstva(RGALI), f. 1387, op. 2, ed. kh. 1, 1. ob. (Pis'moV V. Grigor'evaN. I. Nadezhdinu).



13/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 85especiallymportant: isvision fan administrationuidedby he nsightsof orientalism ould onlycome to fruitionwith he support nd under-standing f hissuperiors. utto whatextentwouldthepolitical nd cul-tural atmosphereemanatingfromthe governor's ffice ccommodateGrigor'ev'svision of scientific dministration? his was the criticaldilemma.Grigor'evbegan his serviceunder Count V. A. Perovskiiwithhighhopes. Perovskii,ike his contemporary,he viceroyof the Caucasus,PrinceM. S.Vorontsov,iewedhimselfs an enlightened dministrator,refinedristocrat ho appreciated xcellence andunderstood hebenefitthat pecializedknowledge ould bring.32ike his brother, .A. Perovskii,theminister f nternal ffairs,erovskiindeavoredto surroundhimselfwithwritersnd scholarswhose talents ould contribute o hisadminis-trationwhileenrichinghis cultural ife.33 rigor'evwas ust such a tal-ented ndividual.34Grigor'ev uickly ecame indispensablenPerovskii'sdministration.Aboveall itwas Grigor'ev'skill s a writer, is ability o compose directand effectivememorandabased on a comprehensive nderstanding fthe matter t hand, thatwon Perovskii'savor.UnderPerovskii'seader-ship,Grigor'evomposedmost fnotall oftheofficial eports oSt.Peters-burg,manyofwhichwereread bythe emperorhimself.35utwhatofGrigor'ev'scholarly redentials? id Perovskii eallyneed a specialistnCentralAsian numismaticsowrite is memoranda?Perovskii,o be sure,encouragedGrigor'ev'scholarlynterests nd providedhimopportuni-tiesto expand and disseminate is knowledge. n additionto thepaper-work ndreports, erovskiiommissionedGrigor'evowrite etailed"his-torico-statistical"emorandaon the Kazakhsand the Ural Cossacks.36There is no indication,however, hatthesereportshad any mpactonpractical olicy.;In 1854, ingering ncertaintiesverGrigor'ev'status-he had beenwithoutn officialppointment-wereresolved.Duringa brief ripbacktoPetersburg e wasappointedchairmanof theOrenburgBorderlandsCommission,n official rganof theMinistryf ForeignAffairsesponsi-ble for ll relationswith he Kazakhs nd otherpeoples of thesteppe.His

32.' On Vorontsov,ee L. HamiltonRhinelander, rinceMichaelVorontsov:iceroyo heTsars Montreal, 990)33. Lincoln, In theVanguard f Reform,4-36; P. I. Mel'nikov,"VospominaniiaVladimirevanovicheDale,"Russkii estnik,ol. 103, bk.3 (1873): 310-11.34. Perovskii as nota newcomer o steppeadministration. hero of1812and closefriend f Nicholas I, Perovskii ad servedsuccessfullys Orenburggovernorn the late1830s,until disastrous xpedition gainstKhiva n 1840 putan end to his administration.After everalyears f semiretirementn theSenate,however, erovskii asready oreturnto active service nd some energetic obbying ucceeded in persuadingNicholas to ap-pointhimagain as governor-general.he post ofOrenburggovernor-generalas n factcreatedspecially orPerovskii o allowhim to serve despitehis highrank. See Russkii i-ograficheskiilovar', 5vols. (St. Petersburg,896-1918), 13:530-40.35. See Veselovskii, asilii asilbevichrigorev,27.36. Ibid., 117, 125. In all likelihoodtheunpublishedmanuscript OpisanieOren-burgskikhtepei otnosheniiaKirgizov russkim,zbavivshimkhotkokandskogoga," o-catedatRGALI,f.159, op. 1,ed. kh.63,is one such memorandum.



14/28

86 SlavicReviewnew position gave him an independent base of power from which hecould begin to crafta policy toward the peoples under his jurisdiction.The power imparted byhis new position was formidable. Soon afterhisappointment he wrote to Savel'ev:

The Kirgiz teppetrembles eforeme. I go aboutplacingsultansunderarrest. remove hemfrom heir ositions. catchbrigands, ut, las,tomy reatdismay,do nothavethepower ohangthem.Afew ays go theorderwasgiventoassemble7,000camels n 7 days: gavethecommandthattheybe assembled,without xpecting t to be fulfilled.Whathap-pened?The camelsappeared on time nd I am triumphant.t is amus-ingto think hat hey re afraid f me.Butyet, hey re afraid 7For all his seeming omnipotence in relation to the Kazakh nomads,

however, Grigor'ev's position within the administration as a whole re-mained strictlyircumscribed.While wieldingbroad discretionarypowerson everydaymatters,he could only institutefundamental policy changeswith the approval of the Asiatic Department of the Ministryof ForeignAffairs nd the Orenburg governor-general.Given the stateofcommuni-cations at the time, attaining such approval was an excruciating processsusceptible to political intrigue,bureaucratic inertia,and a host of otherdifficulties.38Despite these limitationsand continuingfrustrationwithhis secretar-ial duties, Grigor'ev's earlyyears of service in Orenburg under Perovskiiwere, on thewhole, successful. Although his scholarlyproduction had al-most entirely ome to a halt,he had carved out a niche for himselfwithinthe administrationand expanded his knowledge of the Kirgiz steppe andits inhabitants. But to what extent was the ambition that he brought toOrenburg fulfilled?How, specifically, id hisbackground and expertise asan orientalistcontributeto his earlysuccess and to the direction ofimpe-rial policy under Perovskii's stewardship?In certain instances, Grigor'evideas and opinions were undoubtedly influential, lthough there is no ev-idence thathe was partofthe decision-making process withregard to ma-jor initiatives.39 ut twoquestions arise: first, o what extentdid his analy-sis ofCentralAsian policydrawon his specificknowledge as an orientalist?His policymemoranda, one mightargue, differ ittlefromtheworkof an

37. Veselovskii, asilii asilbevichrigorev,32.38. Grigor'ev's ifficultiesn thisregardwerecompoundedbyhispoor personalre-lationswith . P. Kovalevskii,hehead oftheAsiaticDepartmentn St.Petersburg, hichapparentlytemmed rom critical eviewGrigor'ev ncewrote fKovalevskii's ork. eeVeselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigorev,15.39. For example,Grigor'ev's iews n the status fRussiantradersn CentralAsia,whichhe expressed n a memorandum nderhisownnameand in one oftheofficial e-portshe wrote orPerovskii, ad a significantmpact n St.Petersburg.ee N. A.Khalfin,Rossiia khanstvarednei zii (Moscow,1974), 362- 66. Grigor'ev lso expressedhisviewsin a long printedreview: Razborsochineniia Ocherki torgovliRossiis SredneiAsiei'P.Nebol'sina," nOtchetyaXXV-mprisuzhdeniiemidovskikhagrad St.Petersburg,856).On the otherhand,althoughGrigor'ev articipatedn theexpedition gainst heKokandfortressf Al-Mechetn 1853,one of the key vents fPerovskii'senure, here sno evi-dence he playeda role in initiatingr planningtheevent.The fact hathe wasnot sureuntilthe ast momentwhether e wouldevengo alongsuggests,n thecontrary,hathewas"out of the oop." See Veselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigorev,26-27.



15/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 87intelligent nd well-informedureaucrat.Second, to what extentdidGrigor'ev'scholarly ackground erve, ssentially, decorative unctionwithinPerovskii's dministration?ver the aristocrat, erovskii ridedhimselfn hisextensive ntourage,which ncludedwriters,rtists,ctors,bureaucrats, nd hapless relatives.40 ithhis unique skills nd experi-ence, Grigor'ev dded a certaindegree of scholarly anache to the en-tourage,whichPerovskii ppreciatedregardless f the specificpositionshis aide espoused.By round1856,Grigor'ev's osition n Orenburghad beguntodete-riorate. erovskii, ho had longbeen in failing ealth,resignedhis post,leavingGrigor'evo hisfateundera new eader. Moreover,Russianpolicytoward entralAsiaduring hisperiodtook new direction hatGrigor'evfoundnot to his iking.n the ate 1850s, n responsetoheightened en-sionsbetweenRussiaand the ndependentkhanates f CentralAsia,4' hegovernmentntensified iplomatic ffortso strengthentspositionandassuagethenative ulers. t he ame time,militarynd administrativeol-icymakersad become convinced hat tabilityn CentralAsia could onlybe achieved bycreating heavily ortifiedineof frontier osts tretchingfrom heAral Sea to the fortress ernoe (nowAlma-Ata), measure thatwould dramaticallyxpand the Russianpresence, eading inevitablyoconflictnd perhapsevento theoutrightnnexationof the ndependentkhanates.42Grigor'ev oundboth thediplomatic nd militarypproachesunpro-ductiveand ill-advised.Diplomatic contacts-particularly he RussiandelegationtoKhivaand Bukhara ed byN. P. Ignat'ev n 1858 -were, inhisopinion,futile,ince theKhanswouldnevermakeany ignificanton-cessions, nd evenharmful o theextent hat hey laced Russia n a po-sition fweakness.Russia,hefelt,houlddictate ather hannegotiatewithKhivaand Bukhara. Onlybyactingfirmlyrom stanceof ncontestablestrengthould Russiaachieve tsgoals.43At the sametime,Grigor'evwasnot an advocateofmilitaryonquest.A strict nd decisivepolicybased on a knowledge fCentralAsia, he felt,wouldbe enoughtoprotectRussia's conomic nterests nd ensuresecu-ritylong the borderswithout irectmilitaryntervention.Whilehe ac-knowledged he inexorablehistorical rocessesdrawingRussia into theregion,hefelt hatdirect nnexation fparts fKhiva ndBukharawouldmerely esult n an unproductivend burdensome ntanglement.44

40. Local inhabitants ererather aken backby the extravagance f Perovskii'sn-tourage,which ncluded a Frenchchef,who, on a dailybasis,produceda multi-coursebanquet for thirtyf Perovskii's losestassociates.See P. P. Zhakmon,"Iz vospominaniiOrenburgskogotarozhila,"storicheskiiestnik,ol. 100, no. 4 (1905): 74-88.41. On the reasons for heightenedtensions n thisperiod, see Khalfin,Rossiikhanstvarednei zii,366-72.42. SeymourBecker,Russia'sProtectoratesn Central sia: Bukhara nd Khiva,1865-1924 (Cambridge,Mass.,1968), 14-16.43. Grigor'ev xpressedhis feelingon the exchange of diplomaticmissionsquiteclearly n a letter to V V Veliaminov-Zernovhatcan be found in Veselovskii,VasiliiVasil'evichrigortev,69-70.44. Ibid., 184-85.



16/28

88 Slavic ReviewDisagreements over policy were exacerbated by the strainsof adjustingto a new administration. Perovskii's replacement, General A. A. Katenin,

was to all appearances a pleasant and well-intentioned superior. Beforeactually taking office he spent two months in Orenburg learning aboutthe steppe and his new responsibilities. On Perovskii's advice, he urgedGrigor'evto continue to serve and frequently urned to him for nforma-tion and assistance.45But once Katenin actuallytook office,Grigor'ev'sfa-vorable impression quickly dissipated. Despite his initialgood intentions,Katenin, it turned out, had little erious interest n learning about the landand peoples under his urisdiction. Unlike Perovskii,he did not cultivatean image as a patron ofscholarship, and Grigor'ev's plans to produce ad-ditional historical and ethnographic studies of the region rapidlyfell bythewayside.46Meanwhile, secretarial duties-the bane of Grigor'ev's ex-istence under Perovskii- only ncreased under his successor.47These frus-trations, when added to the differences over policy, often plungedGrigor'ev into deep despair. At one such moment he wrote to I. I.Sreznevskii the prominent philologist:

... at every tep am obliged to fulfill hatwhich consider ntitheticalto the nterests f Russia and thepeople that administer. s an orien-talist, , tomymisfortune,nderstandAsia and Asiatics.But thosewhoguide my ctionsdo notknow thing bout one or theother, nd,mea-suring ytheEuropean yard, hey addle their owsand harnesshorsesto theyoke.And there s noway o setanyone traightbout this.Yoube-gin to explain and theyget angry nd saythatyou do not understandanything.... For a personwhois not stupid t s shameful obe a Rus-sianbureaucrat.48Grigor'ev's ry rom he heart utstothe core ofthe dilemma nherent nthe relationship between scholarship and statepolicy.In Grigor'ev's case,knowledge id notequal power- therewasnothing t all automatic r n-evitable about the relationship between the two. Without a receptive andaccommodating nvironmentfpower,Grigor'ev's nowledgewas littlemore than n irritantothosewhom twasto have benefited. atenin, heproduct of the military ureaucratic culture ofNicholaevan Russia, couldnot conceiveofa placeforGrigor'evndhisknowledge eyond hemind-numbing outineof theprovincial hancellery. rained as an officer, eformulated olicyon the basis of military ontingencies-during histenure ffortso strengthenortificationsnd annex territoryroceededrapidly. nowledgeof the anguages, ulture, nd historyf thepeoplestouchedbyhispolicywas,forhim, matter f ittle onsequence,and heresented hosewho told him otherwise.45. Ibid., 149-51.46. Ibid., 166-67.47. Soon afterKatenin rrived, rigor'evwrote o Savel'ev: "All his ime have beentied up with ervice ffairs,r, should say, ervice cribbling,ince we write greatdealbut very ittle ense comesoutof t. had thoughtwithPerovskii's eparture herewouldbe a little ess secretarialwork.But that s not whathas happened. I fellout of the fryingpan intothe fire. am forced to write ll sortsof rubbish."Veselovskii, asiliiVasil'evichGrigor'ev,67.48. RGALI,f.436,op. 1,ed. kh. 1189,1. 17 (Pis'ma Grigor'evaV V Sreznevskomu);see alsoVeselovskii, asilii asilbevichrigorev,74-75.



17/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 89Katenin's enure s governor-general as not of ong duration. n thesummer f 1860he died suddenly fter eturning rom n expedition nd

wasreplaced byGeneralA. P. Bezak.49Under Bezak, Grigor'ev's ortuneswentfrom ad toworse.UnlikeKatenin,Bezak did not even make an at-tempt oacquainthimselfwith he regionand immediatelyet about im-plementing broad rangeofpersonneland policychanges.As a result,therangeofdisagreementsetweenGrigortevnd hissuperiors xpandedto encompassnotonly xternal elationswith he CentralAsian khanatesbut also the internal dministration f the Kazakhs,Bashkirs, nd UralCossacks.50 ebuffedn his attempts o persuade the new governor ochange his policies,Grigor'evwentpublicwith seriesofarticles riticiz-ing the official ositions.51The resultwas a vicious and open conflict nwhichGrigor'evwas subjectedto intrigue, nnuendo,and an official n-quiry nto his activitiess head of the BorderlandsCommission.Whilesuccessfuln defendinghis record,his experiences efthim thoroughlydisillusioned nd repulsed by the prospectof further ervice. n Decem-ber 1862, his resignationfrom the Borderlands Commissionwas ac-cepted,and he returnedmmediatelyo St. Petersburg.Grigor'ev'smbitionshad ended in failure;his ideal of an imperialadministrationuided by specialized knowledgeof the east had beenshattered.His experience llustrateshe difficultiesn conceiving fori-entalism s a cohesivediscourse nwhich cholarly xpertise,iterary ro-duction, nd imperialpractice re inextricablyntertwined.ere is a casein whichthe connectionsbetween knowledge,power, nd imaginationcannotbe assumed.Grigor'ev ame toOrenburg s an oracleof scientifictruth bout theAsiatic other," nly ofindhimself aluedas the consum-mate penpusher,mechanisticallyxecuting vision verwhichhe had nocontrol. orhim, henexus ofpower ndknowledgewasa one-waytreet.Lord of theSteppe:Grigor'evnd the"Kirgiz"Despitehis ack of success n shapingpolicy,Grigor'ev's osition s chair-man of the Borderlands Commissiondid providea certain amountof

49. Bezak had servedmost of his career n the western orderlands,where he firstearned recognition orhisservice n suppressinghe Polish rebellionof1831.His distin-guished ervice n the Crimeanwarbroughthimto the attention fAlexander I who ap-pointed him to the position n OrenburgafterKatenin's eath. See Russkii iograficheskiislovar' 2:630-32. Bezak's reputationn societywas thatof a petty nd autocratic yrant.For a brief escriptionhat ouches n Bezak'srelationswithGrigor'ev,ee DavidMacKen-zie, TheLion ofTashkent:heCareer fGeneral . G. CherniaevAthens,Ga., 1974), 28-29.See also P. P. Zhakmon, IzvospominaniiOrenburgskogotarozhila,"storicheskiiestnik,vol. 106,no. 7 (1906): 76.50. The specific isagreements etween Grigor'ev nd Bezak rangedfromplans toreorganizethe OrenburgCossack Host to measures to combathorse theft mong theBashkirs, lans to forciblyettleBashkir omads, nd thedenialofpermission orKazakhsto receive and allotments or gricultural se. For a detaileddiscussion, ee Veselovskii,Vasilii asil'evichrigorev,01-3, 210-12.51. See, for example, "Neskol'ko slovo zheleznoi doroge cherezUst'-urt,"Vestnikpromyshlennosti,860, no. 1 (signedV G.); "Zametki tnositel'no emledeliiavBashkiriipozharovvOrenburge,"Vestnikromyshlennosti,861,no. 1:29-41 (signed Sterlitamak,a.Sakharov); "O nashikh redneaziatskikhelakh,"Aktsioner,862,no. 12.



18/28

90 SlavicReviewspace forindependent action. How, then,were his actions and decisionsshaped byhis background as an orientalist?What sortsof models and as-sumptions did he bring to his administration,and how did he integratethese ideas into specificpolicies?On the most basic level, Grigor'ev's relations with the peoples ofthe steppe were informed by the assumption that Russian and CentralAsian cultures were distinctand that Russian culture was superior. TheRussian presence in Central Asia, he assumed, was natural, proper, andinevitable -in a laterworkhe referredto it as "one ofthe main callings ofthe Russian people."52 But Grigor'evdid not viewthe differencesbetweenRussia and Asia as insurmountable or physically nnate. On the contrary,he decisively rejected racial conceptions thatposited fixed a priori limita-tions on the capacity of a people or an individual to develop.53 If the"Kirgiz"were at a lower stage ofdevelopment, thiswas the product of his-torical and geographical conditions that necessitated the nomadic wayoflife and prevented the spread of civilization.The tasks of Russian administration in the steppe, as Grigor'ev sawthem, were twofold-first, to uphold and advance Russian interests, ndsecond, to protect subject peoples, increase their material prosperity, ndcreate conditions thatwould make possible their cultural advancement.Thus, Grigor'evsaw the relationship between Russian administrationandthe "Kirgiz"as one of tutelage, patronage, and protection.54Spontaneityand organic growthwere the fundamental principles upon whichRussiantutelage should rest. Direct attemptsto impose Russian civilization,he in-sisted,werefutile nd onlyserved to alienate thepopulation. Onlythroughsteady peaceful interaction would the "Kirgiz"understand what theywerelacking and turntowardRussian civilization. One step Grigor'ev took inthis direction was to organize a Kazakh delegation to the coronation ofAlexander II. He wrote:

This measurewillbe ten timesmoreeffectiveor nstillingn the Hordea liking nd respectforRussia than ten militaryxpeditions nto thesteppe.... Kirgizwho havebeen toPetersburgnd have seen themag-nificence four court, henumbers nd brilliance fourarmies, hemul-titude f ourcities, nd so on,and so forth eturned o the Hordenot atall the same people that eft t,and thischangemanifestedtself erybeneficiallyn their ervice ctivities.5552. V Grigor'ev, V oproverzhenienekotorykhmnenii,vyskazannykhposledneevremia, prepodavaniivostochnykhazykov Rossii, ob izucheniiu nasVostokavoob-shche,"Den', 1865,no. 18:433.53. On Grigor'ev'sttitude oward acial conceptions, ee "Iz zauralskoi tepi," en',1862,no. 28:5-7.54. A smallbuttellingndication fhis conceptionof relationswith he "Kirgiz"shisfrequent se of the diminutive henreferringothem.Forexample, na letter o Savel'evfrom 857he wrotewith egardtothe arrival fKatenin: "Wouldthat do notgetalongwith im,f nly heregion ndmyittle irgiz Kirgiziki]tayedn goodhands."Veselovskii,Vasilii asil'evichrigorev,53.55. Ibid., 146.For an actualaccountof one such trip o the mperial apitalunder-takenbythreeCheremis Marii) in 1829,see PaulW.Werth,Subjects orEmpire:Ortho-doxMission nd ImperialGovernancen theVolga-KamaRegion,1825-18819"Ph.D. diss.,UniversityfMichigan, 996), 196 207.



19/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 91Ifthey nlyknewwhatRussiawasreally ike,Grigor'evuggested, venthemostrebelliousKazakh eaders wouldsoon become loyal nd productivecitizens.Since artificialmeasuresto impose progresswerefutile, he primaryrole of the BorderlandsCommission, s Grigor'ev aw t,was to counter-act and, ifpossible,eliminate bstaclesthatwerepreventinghe naturalspread of Russiancivilizationntothe borderlands.Among the Kazakhs,thesystemfnativegovernance nd Islamwerethe main hindrances,ndboth were strengthenedonsiderably y wrongheaded policies on thepartof the Russian dministration.Grigor'ev'smpressions f theKazakhs,fromhis first ays n Oren-burg,were harply ivided.Whiletheordinary eoplewere,he felt, kind,intelligentnd receptive oeverythingood,"the Kazakhelites,who con-tinued ogovernwith lmostno oversight ythe mperial dministration,were unscrupulousand exploitative o the extreme.56 azakh "sultan-rulers" mbodied,forGrigor'ev,he stereotypicalmageof the Asiatic."'Asiatics," rigor'evwrote, because of their ow stateofcultural dukhov-noe] development re in general nclinedtoward eceit.The Asiatic on-siders heabilityocheata neighbor greatvirtue; unning eems to hima necessary ompanionto intelligence."57dded to theduplicityf theAsiatic ulerswere their apaciousness nd brutalityoward heir ubjects.In hisofficial apacity,Grigor'ev ncovereda rangeofabuses,from x-tortion nd bribery o illegaltaxation nd embezzlement.58yattackingabuses and weakening hepowersof ndigenousrulers,Grigor'ev opedtowinover hepoor and exploitedKazakhmasses o Russianpower. trict,consistent,nd ust exerciseofpower, akingnto account thetraditionalpractices f Kazakhcustomaryaw,he felt,would nstill rudimentarye-gal consciousness nd teachordinary azakhstoview he Russian dmin-istration s a fairer lternativeo thenative uthorities.59tthe sametime,Grigor'evworked o cultivate cadre ofyoungnativeKazakh officials a-miliarwithRussianwayswho wouldshed the mantleof Asiatic" ule andimplementdministrativeracticesn accordancewith civilized oncep-tionsofpower."60In hisdepictionofthe Asiatic" uler,Grigor'ev aints familiar ic-tureof "oriental espotism."t would be very asytopositvarious nstru-mentalmotivationsorhisapplicationof"oriental espotism" o CentralAsia.By ssertinghat Asiatics"werefundamentallynable to rulethem-selves n a just and civilizedmanner, ne might rgue,Russian oriental-

56. Veselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigorev,20.57. [Grigor'ev], Iz zaural'skoistepi .. [pt. 2]," Den', 1862,no. 32:13. A note ontranslation: have chosen to renderdukhovnoes "cultural" ather han "spiritual," hemore commonly ccepted equivalent.Clearlydukhovnoe s one of those terms hatcanneverbe gracefully endered ntoEnglish.Particularlyn this ontext,however,t seemsto me thatdukhovnoe vokes a broader mageof "the ifeofthe mind" than "spiritual,"with tsprimarilyeligious onnotations, ould tendtoconvey. Cultural," hileundoubt-edly nachronistic, omes closer toexpressinghis hadeofmeaning.58. See, for xample,Veselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigorev,24-25.59. Ibid., 213.60. Ibid., 221-24.



20/28

92 SlavicReviewism, s represented yGrigor'ev, rovided n obviousustificationor m-perialexpansion-if they annotrule themselves,omeone has to do itfor hem.Grigor'ev's ffortsodisempowerndigenous litescould serveas direct videnceof his underlyingmotivation. n closerexamination,however, roblems risewith his nterpretation.irst f all, there s thequestionof ntent. here scertainlyo evidenceto ndicate, nd itwouldseem rather ar-fetchedo assume, hatGrigor'evonsciouslyr evenun-consciously ropagatedhis stereotypicalmage of the Asiatic"withthespecificgoal of ustifyingmperialrule.6' More likely,Grigor'ev ctuallybelievedthese stereotypesnd foundconfirmationf them in his fre-quent encounterswithCentralAsian elites.The questionof utilitylsoarises-can we assumethatdepriving orientaldespots"of theirpowerwas broadly iewed s an expedientpolicy hat dvancedRussia's mperialinterests?he traditional attern fRussian xpansion, fter ll,hadbeento eavelocal structuresf powermore or less ntact.62 rigor'ev's lan toreplacenative ulerswithRussian guardians"popechiteli),f mplementedthroughout he Kazakh steppe,wouldhave requiredvastnew expendi-tures nd leftunresolved he questionof wherequalified dministratorscould be found.63Moreover,Grigor'ev imself, s we have seen, arguedagainstRussian expansioninto CentralAsia as an unnecessary urden,and at one point, twould appear,even invokedthespecterof"orientaldespotism" o bolsterhiscase.64ftherewasan ulteriormotive ehind hisstereotypicalmageof the "Asiatic,"twasclearly rather onfusedone.Withregard oIslam,Grigor'evwasalso guidedby tereotypes.slam,forGrigor'evnd hiscontemporaries,voked magesoffanaticismnd vi-olence. Particularlynlight f Russian xperiences n theCaucasus, slamwasseen as a wellspringf rreconcilable esistance o Russianpower.AsVeselovskii uts it, "nota singledisorder,not a single uprising n thesteppe gotbywithout heparticipationnd encouragement f thelocal

61. The imputing f ntent s a problem ngeneralwith aid's model of orientalism.AsJamesCliffordoints ut,Said insists n preservinghepremise f ndividual gencyna conceptualframeworkhat argely recludes tsmanifestation.gency,n this ase,be-comesmerely pretext o posit ndividualmoralaccountability.ee Clifford,On Orien-talism," 69-71.62. MarcRaeff,Patternsf Russian mperialPolicy oward he Nationalities,"nEd-wardAllworth,d., Soviet ationalitiesroblemsNew York, 971), 22-42; Dov Yaroshevski,"Empire nd Citizenship,"n Brower nd Lazzerini, ds.,Russia'sOrient, 8-79.63. Grigor'evwaswell awareofthedifficultiesithhisplan.In keepingwithhis prin-cipleofgradual, rganic hange,he envisioned eplacing heKazakhrulers nly n the m-mediate borderlandarea wherethepopulationwas alreadyfamiliarwithRussianways.Eventually, e assumed,the new systemwould be applied to the remaining reas. SeeVeselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigorev,13-15.64. In 1858, Grigor'ev ent to the Russian GeographicalSociety manuscript e-scriptionf trip o Khiva hat epictedthecitynd itsrulers n thedarkest ossibleterms.Veselovskiiwrites hatGrigor'ev wanted o dampen to some extentour enthusiasm orCentralAsians nd showwhat ort f people theywere" 173). The manuscript,longwithGrigor'ev's xtensive nnotations,was eventually ublished as "Opisanie Khivinskogokhanstva doroga tuda iz Saraichikovskoi reposti," apiski mperatorskogousskogoe-ograficheskogobshchestva,861,bk. 2:105-38.



21/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 93mullahs."65 t the same time,the roots of Islam among the Kazakhs,Grigor'ev elieved,were quite shallow.66 is taskwas to see that his itu-ation did not change. Russian policysince the time of CatherinetheGreat,whichhad permitted nd even encouragedtheexpansionof the s-lamic presence in the steppe, proved to be a significant bstacleto thecontainmentf slam.67 hrough pplication fpolice powers, e was ableto imit he number f tinerant ashkir nd Tatarmullahs n the steppe,butthe new policieshe suggested nvolvinghiftinghe tax burden ontothe Muslim lergy nd eliteswere decisively ejected n St. Petersburg.68The rejectionof Grigor'ev's nitiativesxemplified he problem ofpower xercisedwithout nowledgewhichhe sawas thedeplorablenormwithinhe administration.acking n understandingf the cultural rac-tices urrounding owerrelationshipsn CentralAsian societies,Russianadministrators,rigor'ev elt,made continualmistakesn theirdealingswithnomadic peoples. Russian officials, or example,were prone tooverindulgenative eaders, showering hem withunnecessary ifts ndprivileges. rom Russianperspective,uchtactics eemedan effective ayto create cordial tmosphere fcooperation nd shared nterest,herebystrengtheningoyaltyo the mperial egime.But theresults,ccording oGrigor'ev,were completely he opposite. The 'Asiatic"perceived avishgifts s tribute, sign of weakness nd fear,giving icense to commitun-told infractionsgainstRussianpower.Likewise,merciful reatment fcriminals ndoutlaws nly ncouragedthem oresume heir ctivities ithrenewedvigor.69 nable to projectan aura ofpower usingsymbols ndgesturesnativeto CentralAsian cultures, he Russianauthorities ouldonlyfall back on bruteforce to uphold their nterests. iolence, n thissense,wasa substitute orknowledge,he direct roduct fthe nabilityo"speakthe anguage."Withhisownplansforreformhwarted, rigor'ev ellback nto a de-fensive osition,working ofendoff he ll-conceived chemesof his su-periors.Anymeasures hat nvolved udden drastic hanges n theway flifeof ndigenouspeoples metwithGrigor'ev's irm pposition.His posi-

65. Veselovskii, asiliiVasil'evich rigorev,07. For an overall discussionof Russianperceptions f slam,see RobertGeraci,"Window n theEast: Ethnography,rthodoxyand RussianNationalitynKazan, 1870-1914" (Ph.D. diss.,UniversityfCalifornia, 995).66. Nomadic peoples, it was widely assumed, remained attached to traditionalShamanistbeliefs nd werethereforeess susceptible o the influence f Islam. ChokanValikhanov, nativeKazakhethnographer hoseworkGrigor'evmuch admired,noted na description f the (presentday) Kirgiz, hat lthough hey laimed to be Muslims, hosethat he encountered could not recite a single prayer, arried out all the traditionalShamanist ituals, nd engagedin sexual behavior hatwould have been unthinkablenan orthodox Islamic society. ee Chokan Valikhanov, Opisanie Dzhungarii,"ZapiskiImperatorskogousskogoeograficheskogobshchestva,861,bk. 2:42.67. On statepolicy, ee Dov B. Yaroshevski,Imperial trategyn theKirghiz teppein the EighteenthCentury,"Jahrbiicherfiireschichtesteuropas9, no. 2 (1991): 221-24.For Grigor'ev's iews, ee "Pis'ma z zaural'skoi tepi," en', 1862, no. 35: 12-15.68. Veselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigorev,07-8.69. This, nfact,was Grigor'ev's xplanationfor seriesof disturbances mongtheKazakhs n 1855.See ibid., 139 40.



22/28

94 SlavicReviewtion drew on the understanding of nationalitythathe had absorbed in hisyouth.Nationality,he felt,was an integralpartof human existence. "With-out an awareness of oneself as an organic part of a nation [narod],"Grigor'evwrote,"an individual can have neither a healthy ife,nor full de-velopment."70A nation, however,was unthinkable withoutnationality-the collection of traits nd habits thatcreated a unique mode ofexistencedistinct from that of all other peoples.7' And nationality could not bechanged at a moment's notice -a people could eitherpreserve its nation-alityor cease to exist as a nation.72Therefore measures that sought toforcibly hange the basic wayof life that defined nationalitywere a threatto the existence of the nation.Grigor'ev perceived just such a threat in proposals to force the no-madic Bashkirs to settle permanently and take up agriculture.73On theother hand, he also opposed regulations that expresslyforbade the Ka-zakhs from engaging in agriculture,despite the fact thattheythemselvesfelt it a necessity.Behind both positions was his opposition to forciblemeasures. "Experience teaches," Grigor'evwrote:

thatnothingforcedwill ast,that everythingntimelywilldecay.Thejudge as towhat suntimelyan onlybe the nation tself.Whenthe soilfor ne phenomenonor another sprepared, twill mergeof tsown c-cord and itwillemerge ndestructible. o stimulate his phenomenonartificiallyeanstoviolate heorganismndprovoke miscarriage.hus,if particular ation follows nomadic wayof ife nd does notchangeto an agricultural ayof ifeof tsown accord,then this ransitions ei-ther mpossible or hemfor ome reason orit suntimely.o make a no-mad settled s thereforen act ofviolencetowhich, n our opinion,noauthorityas the right.74But if the nomadic wayof ifecould not be changed by force,how weretheKazakhs to be drawnto Russian civilization?The answers,forGrigor'ev,were example and education. It was useless for Russians to preach or to

legislate civicvirtues f theythemselvesdid not embody them. If the onlyimage the Kazakhs had of Russian civilizationwas the behavior of corruptofficials, heycould hardlybe expected to hold Russia in great esteem. Inhis tenure with the Borderlands Commission Grigor'ev did his best to70. "Zametka,"Molva, 1857,no. 18. Quoted in Veselovskii, asiliiVasil'evichrigor'ev,168.71. Grigor'ev's iewsofnationality ereheavilynfluencedbythe ideas ofNikolaiNadezhdinwithwhomhe worked loselyduringhisyears n St. Petersburg. adezhdin'sconceptionof nationalitys laid outmostdirectlyn "Ob etnograficheskomzucheniina-rodnosti usskoi," apiskiRusskogoeograficheskogobshchestva,ol. 2 (1846): 61-114. Also

published nEtnograficheskoebozrenie,994,no. 2. For discussionof Nadezhdin and hisideas, see NathanielKnight, Constructinghe Science ofNationality: thnographynMid-Nineteenthentury ussia" Ph.D. diss.,ColumbiaUniversity,995), chaps.2 and 3.72. See "O znacheniinarodnosti,"Molva,1857,no. 24:291.73. Grigor'ev xpressedhis opposition in the article "Zametkiotnositel'nozem-ledeliiav Bashkirii pozharovv Orenburge,"Vestnikromyshlennosti,861, no. 1: 29-41.74. Ibid.,quoted in Veselovskii, asilii asilbevichrigorev,12.



23/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 95stifle he briberynd corruption orwhichRussianofficials n thesteppewerenotorious-a thankless ask o be sure,but one in whicheven rela-tive mprovementouldbe counted as success.75Educationamong theKazakhshad begun beforeGrigor'ev's enure tthe BorderlandsCommission.Traditional slamic nstruction ymullahshad longbeen availableand continuedto flourish. t the same time, t-temptshad begun to include Kazakh children n Russian institutions.From the1840s on, Kazakhchildrenwere taken ntothe Cadet Corps inOrenburg, nd bythe end of the decade a specialschool forKazakhchil-dren was functioningn Orenburg.76 ut nativeKazakh educationwashinderedby he ow status f theKazakh anguage.For Muslimpeoplesofthe steppe,Tatarwas the anguageof education and literacy. ven in theRussian chools,Tatarremainedthe anguage of nstruction. nd beforeGrigor'ev's rrival,officialshad carried out all correspondencewithKazakhofficialsn Tatar, ssured bytheir nterpretershat the two an-guageswereone and the ame.77 rigor'ev's oal incraftingcultural ol-icyon thesteppe was to strengthen ativeKazakh language and cultureand gradually eplace the Tatar-MuslimnfluencewithRussianciviliza-tion. Schools that ombinedteachingn theKazakh anguage with xpo-sure to Russian anguage and cultureweretheforemostmeans throughwhichGrigor'ev ought o realizehisgoals.78Grigor'ev'smphasis n educationpoints oa fundamental ifferencebetweenhispractices s an administratornd themodel oforientalismf-fered ySaid. Educationpresupposes hecapacity o earn.On theKazakhsteppethepicture an no longerbe sustained f an unbridgeable hasmbetween ast and west, gap thatSaid describes s the "coreofessentialknowledge.. inherited rom centuryfmodernWesternOrientalism,the chasm between intelligent, ogical and mentally isciplinedEuro-peans and 'Orientals,"'whoseminds re so disorganized hat hey annoteven walkon a pavedroad.79Grigor'ev,fcourse,wasnot immunefromcultural tereotypesf the "Asiatic." ut the factthattheywereculturalrather hanracialstereotypesmeantthat hey ould be transcended.Andduring hisperiod,notableexampleswere availableof Asiatics"whohaddone ustthat- movedaway rom heir raditionalmilieu, cquirededu-cation, nd gainedrecognition nd respectwithinRussian ociety.Many,infact, ecame ethnographersnd orientalists,erving,n somecases,asculturalmediators etween heirnativepeoples and Russian ducatedso-

75. Veselovskii, asiliiVasilbevichrigortev,21.76. P.V Znamenskii,Napamiat'NikolaeIvanovicheltminskomKazan', 1892),135-37.77. Veselovskii, asilii asil'evichrigorev,17.78. One ofthemostprofound onsequencesofGrigor'ev'sducationpolicywasitsinfluenceon one of his subordinates, youngphilologist romKazan' by the name ofNikolai l'minskii, ho ater chievedconsiderable cclaimforhis system f choolsfor no-rodtsy, hichemphasized theuse of native anguagesas a tool formissionaryctivity.eeGeraci, "Window n theEast,"49-50; Znamenskii,Na pamiat'o Nikolae vanovichelmin-skom,37-40. On the expansionof the Kazakh schools, ee Grigor'ev's rticle, Otkrytiekirgizskoihkoly Troitske," evernaiachela, 861, no. 241:2.79. Said,Orientalism,8.



24/28

96 SlavicReviewciety.80 he orientalism model does not accommodate this movementacross cultures. Orientalism, by definition,spoke for the orient, leavingthe oriental without a voice.8' The idea that orientals themselves mightparticipate in the shaping of orientalism subverts the dichotomy uponwhich the discourse rests.The extent to which Grigor'ev acknowledged the receptivity f theKazakhs to cultural advancement is illustratedby a series of articles hewroteunder the pen name "Sultan Mendali Piraliev." In a fascinatingcul-tural masquerade, Grigor'ev created the character of Piraliev and then,writing n the fictitiousfirst erson, used him to project an idealized im-age of the enlightened Kazakh. A product of the Russian educational sys-tem, Piraliev was eloquent, erudite, logical, and stronglyenamored ofRussian culture while continuing to live the traditional Kazakh lifestyle.According to prevalentracial conceptions, Grigor'evpointed out, theveryexistence ofsuch an individualwas unthinkable. "It s clear,"NorthAmer-ican separatists (that is, Confederates-he was writingduring theAmeri-can CivilWar) would say,

that ultanMendaliPiraliev oesnot exist nd couldnever xist nd thatthis s simply new nvention fthe ly bolitionists, ho, t s wellknown,are capable ofallmannerofmischief. fter ll,this ultan, lthoughheis nota black-skin r a red-skin, elongsnonetheless o the race oftheyellow-skinned:owcan he look on thingsnd reasonas do we,thepriv-ilegedsonsoftheCaucasian"race," henatural ristocratsftheearth 2Grigor'ev/Piraliev'sresponse is unequivocal:My xistence sfar rom omfortable:hardly iffern ifestylerom therKirgiz.Nonetheless, orgivemypresumptuousness,ut do not considermyselfnymorestupid r mmoral han nAmerican reacheror a Brit-ish Lordor a Frenchbourgeoisora Russianbureaucrat.Notall tribes fhumanityregranted he samefate.Notall ofthememergesimultane-ously ntothefieldofhistorical ctivity.utseparate ndividuals romlower,mmature race"can,givenfavorable onditions, chieve exactlythesamecultural dukhovnoe]evelopment smembers fbreeds[porod]enjoying, t thegivenmoment n history,heprivilege f highrank.8380. Examples include Chokan Valikhanov,the Kazakh ethnographer;DorzhiBanzarov, Buriat pecialist n Mongolian anguages; akinfBichurin, nativeChuvashresponsiblen largemeasurefor he establishmentfRussian inology;A. K. Kazem-Bek,a Persianadopted into a Russianfamilywho became an eminentprofessor f orientallanguagesat Kazan' and laterat St. PetersburgUniversity.n Valikhanov, ee Ch. Ch.Valikhanov, obranie ochineniia, vols. (Alma-Ata,1961-64); on Bichurin,see PetrVladimirovichenisov,Zhizn'monakhaakinfa ichurinaCheboksary,997). For nforma-tionon Banzarov,Kazem-Bek, nd otherorientalists,ee Istoriia techestvennogoostokove-deniiado seredinyIXveka Moscow,1990); Istoriia techestvennogoostokovedeniiaserediny

XIXvekado1917g. (Moscow,1997); A. N. Kononov,Biobibliograficheskiilovar' techestven-nykh iurkologovMoscow,1989). Scholarsfrommixed marriages etweenRussiansand"orientals" erealso notuncommon.Note,for xample,A. P. Shchapov,M. L. Mikhailov,andA.A. Bobrovnikov.81. Said,Orientalism,22.82. [Grigor'ev], Iz zaural'skoi tepi," en', 1862,no. 28:5.83. Ibid. The wordrace ppearsin italics n theoriginaltext.My sense,however,sthatGrigor'ev'sntentn using talicswasclosertothepresent-dayse ofquotationmarks.



25/28

Grigor'evn Orenburg 97Grigor'evwrites ere notonly s an ethnographerwithdeep sympathiesand hopes fortheobjects of hisresearch.84 is ideas also reflect is pas-sionatebelief na Russian ciencethat ouldspeakwith tsownvoice,thatwasnot beholdento models and conceptionsviewed s irrefutableruthsin the west.Russianorientalism,s Grigor'ev nvisioned t,whilefullyn-formed bout the atestdevelopmentsn scholarship nAsia aroundtheworld,wouldreserve or tself herighto define heessential oncepts ndassumptions nderlyingtsposition s an autonomousfield fknowledge.

In examining henexus of knowledge ndpowerfrom heperspectiveofGrigor'ev'service,mypurposehas not been to whitewash ussianori-entalism, o cleanse it of its mperialistic insand return t to thepuresphereof abstract nowledge. n fact,t s theconceptualframeworke-hind ust such an endeavor that seek to call intoquestion: is puttingscholarship nder nterrogationo be udged guilty r innocentof com-plicity ith mperialism productive ath toward nderstandinghedy-namics fknowledge nd power n theRussian mpire?EdwardSaid takesthis pproach n hisstudy forientalism,nd the nsights e derived romhis nquiry ave had a profoundmpacton a range of fields rom nthro-pology,iterarytudies, nd historyoorientalismtself.85rigor'ev's a-reer,however, rovides mplereason tosuppose that heframeworkutforwardySaid forunderstanding estern rientalismhouldbe appliedwith aution, f t all,to theRussiancontext.Western rientalism,s Said depicts t, s foundedon an essentialized,unified onceptionof the orient nd its nhabitants. rientalism weepsaway heneed fordistinctionsnd focuses n theproduction f a core ofknowledge onsisting f factual tatements niversallypplicable to theorient s a whole.ForRussians,however,twasnot quite so easyto dis-pense with heparticular. s is oftenpointedout, n Russiathe oriental"other"wasnotnecessarilynunknown reature etapartby housands fmiles ndvast ceans. nRussia, he"other"wasall around-in ethnic n-clavespenetrating eep into theheartland f Russian ettlement,n scat-teredsettlementsnd in vaststretches f borderland n whichethnicgroupsmet and interacted verthecourseofcenturies.n sucha setting,theknowledge hat ne "other" ifferedrom notherwasoffundamentalsignificance. ettledTatarswereclearly ifferentromnomadicBashkirsand paganCheremis, nd to refuse oacknowledge hese differences astoinvite otentiallyethalmisunderstandings.ussianethnography,neof the fundamental omponentsofRussian orientalism, eveloped as a

84. This, t would seem,was not an uncommonoccupationalhazard. Note,for ex-ample,the case of P. I. Nebol'sin, a colleague ofGrigor'ev'st theRussian GeographicalSociety, ho, fter riting sympatheticeport n a delegation fKazakhs o St.Petersburg,was publicly ccused of "Kirgizomania."ee P. Nebol'sin, "Puteshestvyiushchieirgizi,"Russkii estnik,ol. 29 (September1860): 41-49; and loasafZhaleznov, Kirgizomania,"Russkii estnik,ol. 30 (November1860): 45.85. For an overview f thediscussions urroundingOrientalism,ee GyanPrakash,"OrientalismNow,"Historynd Theory 4, no. 3 (1995): 199-212; and JuanR. I. Cole,"Power, nowledge nd Orientalism,"iplomaticistory 9, no. 3 (1995): 507-13.



26/28

98 SlavicReviewscience ofdistinctionevotedmoreto the"making f difference"hantodistillinghediversityfthe Eurasianplain into aggregate representa-tions" nd easilydigestedmaxims.86 f courseRussian orientalism rewon and perpetuated ultural tereotypes,s Grigor'ev'smageofthe Asi-atic" llustrates.87ut superimposed pon these "orientalist"ropeswasabroaderdiscourseoforganicnationalityhatGrigor'ev awas eminentlyapplicable to Asian peoples and that ed to his vehementrejectionofracialconceptions nd his effortso promotethe anguagesand customsof the peoples underhis urisdiction.88The mechanisms hroughwhich pecializedknowledge f theorientis transformednto colonialpowerarenot always lear, evenin the con-textofwesternmperialism.89rientalism an function,twould seem,bothon a purely iscursiveevel, s a productive orce hat reates nd or-ganizesthe very ategories f thought hatrenderdominationpossible,and on a practicalevelas a set ofpositive ssertionsboutthe orient hatform hebasisof actualpolicy. oth of these cenarios, owever,ely pona modelofdisciplinaryowercapable ofpenetratingnd shapingthe e-gal and administrativeractices f the state.Grigor'ev'sxperiencepro-vides a vivid llustration f th

Documents

Grigoriev in Orenburg