Intermediaries as Change Agents

The last decade has witnessed immense growth in the study of the Soviet Union and the world. The transnational wave is still cresting and new geographies have opened alongside new analytical paradigms.1 The Russian Revolution is now inseparable from its global reverberations.2 The closed Moscow of the 1930s has become cosmopolitan.3 Instead of a bipolar struggle we have a “global cold war” with flash points and opportunities for actors across the Global South.4 The Iron Curtain has become a “semi-permeable membrane.”5 Globalization had a “red” counterpart, linking the “Second” and “Third” worlds.6 And “socialist internationalism” was entangled with an array of competing global projects.7 A student wishing to study Africa’s engagement with the Soviet Union, for example, now has a wealth of new approaches to inform and inspire.8 Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022—launched while this thematic cluster was mid-revision—has rocked the historical field. It is too early to know whether we have entered a new historiographical moment, but calls to “de-colonize” the field promise to bring new scrutiny to the “imperial turn,” while creating new urgency for national frames not only in Ukraine but Central Asia and elsewhere.9 Some might suggest that the very framing of “transnationalism” provides a naturalizing veil for Soviet empire-building.10 In light of recent events, is a coherent picture of the Soviet Union and the world even possible? Scholarship under the banner of Soviet empire, Soviet nationality policy, and socialist internationalism and transnationalism has illuminated an array of geographies and spanned each decade of the twentieth century. How can one draw connections among the eras of transnational activity? And how can one build on the insights of the imperial frame without being regarded as empire’s handmaiden? To integrate the discreet eras of transnational socialism and to offer a useful frame for further study, we propose a focus on actors, practices, and modes to trace how nebulous terms like “socialist internationalism” actually functioned and changed over time. Although all four articles in this cluster have at least one foot in the Soviet context, we choose the term “socialist” in the hope that this framework may be instructive for a broader geography of socialist states and movements. We propose the term “socialist mediation”—embodied by “socialist intermediaries”—as a fruitful framework for elucidating the characteristic practices and tensions inherent in transnational Communism and as a conceptual bridge to link its discrete eras.11 As these articles suggest, a biographical sensitivity is often suited to reveal the diverse ways individuals interpreted, translated, and transformed socialism and its emergent institutions in new contexts. By the same token, this approach permits a vantage from which to appreciate transnational socialism’s flexible but frequently precarious reliance on its intermediaries. What is meant by “socialist intermediary” and where does the term originate? As we elaborate below, we have in mind those individuals summoned—by vocation or by circumstance—to pursue the interests of socialism to novel, transnational, and transcultural audiences. Their experiences are characterized by three recurrent dynamics: the combined tension of privilege and vulnerability inherent among imperial intermediaries; the imperative to interpret and translate socialism, often in heterogeneous ways, in contrast to imperfect synonyms like “representatives” or “transmitters” of socialism; and the pursuit of transformation. In their most extreme form, socialist intermediaries pursued something akin to spiritual conversion and, in a lesser register, promoted “mere” cultural change, but in all cases these pursuits stood in contrast to narrow policy outcomes or superficial realignments. Intermediaries as designated subjects of study emerge from imperial historiography. Although the term was perennial topic of inquiry, Frederick Cooper and Jane Burbank’s Empires in World History (2010) elevated it to new visibility, where imperial intermediaries played key roles in establishing and maintaining an empire’s “rule of difference.”12 For Burbank and Cooper imperial rule is inseparable from a reliance on intermediaries due to its inexorable state of expansion. This centrifugal movement inherently stretches the social fabric of an empire’s dominant or titular group, which cannot be dispatched infinitely, hence the reliance on designated representatives. Among the paradigmatic intermediaries they cite are indigenous conquered elites, colonial settlers, and slaves. They demonstrate how imperial states balance “incentives” and “discipline” for intermediaries, highlighting the inherent tension of imperial rule that, at best, produces “contingent accommodation” between the state and its agents, whose relative autonomy inevitably creates “subversive possibilities.”13 Scholars of Eurasian empires have noted that intermediaries were often selected from among diasporas, creating a dynamic that informs our understanding of socialist intermediaries. Intermediary communities developed in symbiosis with their host states, profiting from their alterity while being subject to restrictions. In the Ottoman context Phanariot Greeks became diplomats and Balkan Christian slaves became Janissaries.14 Armenian traders extended networks across the Russian, Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires. Imperial intermediaries can be thought of as embodying the “legal pluralism” of imperial rule, whose particular arrangement of privilege and obligation is especially stark.15 According to Yuri Slezkine, an empire’s intermediaries lived by their “wit, craft, and art” rather than by direct production, confining their “raison d’être [to] the maintenance of difference, the conscious preservation of the self and thus of strangeness,” especially preserved via practices like dietary law and endogamy.16 Natalie Rothman cautions against assuming intermediaries to be inherently in-between figures, hence her attention to their own rhetoric and embeddedness in institutions that enable their activity.17 In turn, we note that socialist intermediaries often shared this imperative to preserve their distinctions, especially because entry into their rank was more voluntary than heritable under Soviet conditions.18 Even Erik Scott’s Georgians as “familiar strangers” forms a novel hybrid of voluntary and heritable mediation in the Soviet context, requiring performance no less than passport nationality. In short, imperial intermediaries are not simply born; they are made via institutions and self-fashioning. The above discussion has focused on the positionality of socialist intermediaries, but we must also clarify the nature of socialist translation and interpretation. We note that much scholarly attention to the precarity of group boundaries has been explicitly and implicitly informed by Bruno Latour, whose notion to “reassemble the social” would place intermediaries at the cusp of novel “associations.”19 The perceived incommensurability between cultures opened spaces for intermediaries to interpret and translate, and thereby articulate new connections or reinforce existing ones. In his elegant discussion of tongchi interpreters, the Muslim subjects of Xinjiang trained in Confucian schools who mediated local Muslims’ interactions with the Qing administration, Eric Schluessel observes actors “endowed with the capacity to translate what they transport, to redefine it, redeploy it, and also to betray it.”20 Their ability to exploit the “information gap” between Muslims and the state provoked resentment from both sides. Schluessel argues that the tongchi’s “constant motion across a gap between two modes of representation drew attention to the difference between them,” which ultimately worked to undermine the very purpose of Confucian schools: namely, to produce “agents of transformation” and inculcate Confucian values on the colonial frontier.21 This is a sobering assessment of the intermediary vocation for the imperial center. Although varying by degrees, an agenda of transformation was implicit in much modern imperial mediation, whether to make imperial subjects Russian, Confucian, “civilized,” or some other formulation. However, as is generally agreed, in most colonial empires this mission was highly contingent, hidden, or poorly supported. Its pace was glacial—often purposefully so. With the champions of socialism, the agenda to be and supported. of a picture as Qing in which boundaries between may have we a dynamic picture of change, characterized by and to be but also much into and even This was not the for colonial subjects of for new this was the of the to an who not be made to in This often And while the of the of to the study of socialism the very is at least one that the framework of socialism as a has analytical In turn, socialism’s nature as and it a of Soviet socialist intermediaries were not simply diplomats state interests in the early of the Russian and in the of socialism’s not but rather to And even as the Soviet in the and early the light of socialism as a was To the of “socialist internationalism” in the as or the pursuit of would be to the spiritual that in What is from the of intermediaries to this picture of It to more the of socialist imperial intermediaries were to the imperial “rule of and their of mediation boundaries of socialism’s intermediaries to these In of a they to the of difference that mediation inevitably In other socialist is vantage from which to socialism’s akin to the that the with over the actually in its In this each socialist intermediary to his or her often by their mediation as as This of socialist mediation to the of This is in a narrow the of or to be into new socialism was more than an but rather a social which only be and by As even the context the Revolution to new cultural was not a This to by those who rhetoric and even that to the translation was a which the it the focus on their meant that translation was not only but also the of in new contexts. were to be it was by often and the And the socialist was not only with of the was the of whether in the of or In turn, of the translation was to shared to which may not have they were under It was often the of socialism’s that its intermediaries to at least of socialism, as in this In the socialist intermediaries the boundaries of the even it to its on and cultural the and of Schluessel observes that the of tongchi was in other a that was to state of that in the in its and the and the of translation with and By the translation in the Soviet Union became a to bridge not only but also and became in their own of these translation with imperial or which in to the frame of the A We are not the to note the of in imperial and transnational socialist This is due to the of biographical by an its social context, the and the social to each a approach to and the of and as they at the of the from which is a frame by the to a like in this cluster the biographical from the of who their as socialist We suggest that the as a where socialism was and promise for broader in the in the socialist world. In turn, the of recent has also become more a of intermediaries and actors, who can from and also state As and of actors where the boundaries between and and and how these tensions with In a narrow our intermediaries are of an of However, we to of diplomats as of a more group of intermediaries who not between states but also between cultures and which both and all of were in the of and socialism in new contexts. We hope this build existing of socialist mediation in its of their For the nature of “socialist was not but via in like the and the Soviet And how one the in a with no a of national or a of The to these and often to the of cultural rather than their it was in mediation that intermediaries interpreted, and transformed socialism, to the that of the Soviet are in the the positionality of socialist intermediaries and the nature of we their characteristic actors, and practices were to of socialist What would a of socialist internationalism like the of The modes of transnational socialism were by the of the by new of and and by and The of the socialist state a Russian and its intermediaries with new institutions from which to clarify their of socialism and new of like other that the socialism a global its promise all who were their The in in was an of to The was in as an of over The from to the of and their into the of but also the with the dominant and In to these the that and the to an the of The of a in the Russian to modes of socialist mediation, diverse of to build to the of and the of in their This was by which of and which in Russia’s between the of in and and with and other The of the Soviet state the Revolution a new in the of Communism became a and the Soviet Union not only of socialism but also with a The was and more than its the of was as the Soviet state and However, in its the as much as as in this that their own characterized by and while opportunities for were to the emergent its of state and which became a and for socialist Scholars might also focus on the and of socialist mediation of the or the and of the by the and In the between and over the of in one to the of the in to the Although in the socialist the from and As the its attention Soviet a to by the in the The study of Soviet policy a of the Soviet of but has not been as a of intermediaries. In Central for of the of had thereby the reliance on intermediary In a with indigenous the Soviet with as the who the of socialist an The early Soviet state the of on as and even the of local as intermediaries of In this decade of socialism, the between and was not to the Soviet state or its intermediaries, to a but array of For the of the of the in and a Muslim Communism that would national and The of the much of the and colonial world in a of requiring With less it was the of socialist became the of institutions as the for the of the where and between and became too As the of in one boundaries with the the Soviet Union to as an of with and conversion The for with be a of the As transnational connections became by cultural connections became more and has against a of and cultural the Soviet by the intermediaries calls as the spiritual of world The of and Soviet with was Soviet cultural especially the of the and the of socialist in on the Soviet were to into national and to into new forms of especially the cultural intermediaries in the of from the as and to the points of and as as to new in as the and the And the of a broader Soviet the of an translation hence the but of the As Soviet transformed the of the who became a cultural and with new as as a even more Soviet where the and were often to because of Soviet it was to be by and which highly the and of intermediaries. Although World is a is to it in a broader of socialist internationalism that can be illuminated the of its intermediaries. a an discussion of the among the a scholarly of the most of Soviet cultural intermediaries, as and while the of mediation were in the Soviet where national shared their and cultural with the in modes of internationalism was the of state boundaries and, with it, the between state and actors, with made by and in this on were also of their own of World the Soviet the of global socialism as an of was into the Soviet a of socialist The of on a new of socialist intermediaries, from trained in the to of Soviet or dispatched to in the to Soviet or who to to their in was not a the from and became of an entangled still mediated by the of intermediaries at The of made the of some of the most forms of the the of the Soviet and and the of national modes of socialism not only in but also in and the the socialist world and one of the world. intermediaries the to a with as a movement of The was a array of socialist and new forms of internationalism the as as of world and in the world. The Soviet Union made its own for the and of and its own their and even of socialist thereby creating opportunities for new Soviet intermediaries to opportunities for and for socialist autonomy in and in to tensions but also among competing socialist with to a even and competing for the of of the whose in turn, this field to further their own The to with the witnessed the of as a to pursue Soviet and the of creating where be an or a A new of in the socialist and in opportunities for to interpret the of and to socialism, by the the the of intermediary and that the of the Soviet as student and to but a And the socialist mediation of was in the of the Soviet that transformed socialist by new roles and and what was Soviet the of Soviet and the who transformed and into with their and by the boundaries of to both and Soviet to the of the most translation was in the In the and the socialist new opportunities for the as the as and of socialism and even as and other a to the of socialist intermediaries they the of privilege and translation and with to socialist The above of socialist internationalism in and the to and became a with across and than Soviet we the of under Soviet to and be by the of the of intermediaries, and the of socialist interpretation. We not to or but to in context of other modes of socialist mediation, the and cultural the of socialism as of world and the of in and We hope that a focus on socialist mediation can at least three on intermediaries to our understanding of the and of transnational as the and of the early or the opportunities for World socialist intermediaries to the of the socialist in its it to socialist states as intermediaries. This especially for the Soviet Union as an empire, was by the of cultural in its Soviet intermediaries often the between and and can connections between eras of Soviet and socialist the in the and to World and to the more in the The four we bring the to the who be a socialist being an intermediary is above all a and because socialist states frequently their to socialism to we that intermediaries be by intermediaries of by or the state to this we the to the of their as intermediaries. the of Soviet to the and transformation of a cultural intermediary in each key of socialist It how an Armenian in Central to an of to both and audiences. And it of her of and of as a or of Soviet cultural suited to at and as a of cultural argues that her to a for Soviet Central the the of intermediaries, in the by a biographical approach from an array of the and of to this thereby its And by on own how her own on nationality and the Soviet of of the that both and undermine her of the state of privilege and that intermediaries. the and of the most the Soviet Union with is in this cluster as a who the of and was the Soviet Union, even a on for the of in Soviet and and for also became a and in his own among an indigenous of to the of to demonstrate that with a flexible of and that to in that was not simply from from Soviet but networks and as the connections at or his As not the of at the of the by their which our own the of the intermediary of socialism was also characterized by a to something calls in both of the In other to and cultural hope in cultural by the of The in the but it was World that transformed the nature of socialist The of the of Soviet an for new actors and to preserve the only socialist the and Soviet who in what terms a in Soviet a socialism with in to the between socialism and and for and the of a for Soviet the between the Soviet and the its nature the urgency to that of a in both by an of the and the of and as as and and were that a shared the Soviet of more experiences of as and and as and socialism also and And this bring the or Although the to the was because it the for of and the state with a of The pursuit of via became a of the transnational movement and socialist more in the but its World have not been that the for this of the of and the and the by and intermediaries were by the in a intermediary in the a of Soviet in the of conversion to the the banner of her had As of an and with a at her at a even to have three to and the As a of the a Soviet In her and of the the of and her and of be a flexible and framework among Soviet in their with the of at between and Soviet provides an to and clarify the of intermediary even As was a of from and to and all the to more but all of which from a by and and and Some from Russian for and the dynamic of vulnerability and privilege with imperial intermediaries. a socialist but were the Russian who with the also intermediaries in their own they were not socialism like it would However, the between mediation and was not Even and the other their to the for and with can we the that they in more connections with the above the dynamic in too the to our to the of all and which to in of those as who pursued their with and In the and intermediaries, the most is the between the being by the characteristic tension of privilege and a of their and a by the of the of to socialist intermediaries World with an understanding of the as with a of their and the not simply as a bridge between eras of more but as a of internationalism in its own to between often at and of socialism in the in turn, to Soviet and in as intermediaries and of socialist but also as of with three of the four articles focus on which whether were among the of socialist intermediaries or whether socialist states to have in this played roles in the as but in each of our three cases were to not simply as but as Soviet that the as for socialist mediation, and that and were to bridge the most even with the of socialist And as as the in and of new opportunities with their direct to In all a field of and its own of both and from state and the of and socialist a to the socialist to new but one in cultural and intermediaries and their The of and suggest that to its and among its the of in the of and the same notion to and other cultural intermediaries for the of a of of the self and of also as a that among its to become the very that their and its into an of In their cases the term not a or an a a to be and a of engagement and to the socialist thereby some of its promise and the in this cluster might in and they all modes of socialist internationalism at The from Soviet of and to focus on actors at or In turn, socialism in translation on a of or a the actors as of and the Soviet and the boundaries of This thematic cluster of a with the of the at Central The to the which the cluster as as and This particular the and we the to the articles by and in this is at Central is at on a of Soviet Central Asia World is of History at the Central of Central and of the for most recent The of the in and and We and and in the and

Business · Economic system · Economics · Intermediary · Political science · Socialism · Communism, Protests, Social Movements · European history and politics · Law · Marketing · Soviet and Russian History

• From Tyranny to Absolutism

  Open Access•Alisa Shablovskaia•International Journal Middle East…•2026

  Add to list