The Siberian Land Survey and the Politics of Spatial Approximation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3343107 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Alberto Masoero (0000-0002-3275-8583, University of Turin, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 93 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 283-323 |
| Publication date | 2021-06-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Journal of Modern History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-2801 • E-ISSN: 1537-5358 |
| Publisher | University of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1086/714150 |
| OpenAlex | W3166328865 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 21 |
Empire building in Asiatic Russia in the late tsarist empire encompassed a complex set of measures. Yet its most fundamental component was about surveying and allotting land to both native residents and incoming settlers, a procedure called zemleustroistvo, or “land organization.” An 1896 law regulated this procedure in the four Siberian governorates. It was the Russian counterpart of a process common to other settler societies. Despite its technicalities, land surveying can be regarded as a point of intersection between political/intellectual and social history, the locus where political design met complicated social realities and tried to transform them, most often with mixed results. Rules about tracing spatial boundaries reflected ideas about the rational use of resources or about justice, as well as social and cultural hierarchies to be implemented. This essay examines what Siberian land organization was supposed to accomplish and why it was conceived in its particular form. Questions about legal title, survey scale, and allotment standards are discussed to attain a better understanding of the logic of imperial rule. Tsarist decision makers constructed a procedural framework marked by information deficiency, quantitative approximation, and administrative ambiguity. This approach was intentional and produced a fluid, semi-authoritarian, semi-negotiated dialectic of petitions and administrative responses. By 1905, however, the politics of spatial approximation showed its limits and gave way to perceptions of an increasing administrative impotence in managing population and resources. This helps explain the urgency of the mobilizing, technocratic effort that marked the final years before the First World War
Authoritarianism · Democracy · Dialectic · Epistemology · Geography · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Population · Sociology · Technocracy · European history and politics · Law · Russia and Soviet political economy · Soviet and Russian History
Replenishing the Earth
Eurasian Sovereignty
Statistics and ‘sufficiency’
Road to Power
Kazakh Chinggisids, land and political power in the nineteenth century
How the Indians Lost Their Land
In Accord with State Interests and the People's Wishes
Russians into Iakuts? "Going Native" and Problems of Russian National Identity in the Siberian North, 1870s-1914
Who, and When, Were the Inorodtsy? The Evolution of the Category of "Aliens" in Imperial Russia
Lesres publicaerusses. Discours sur la propriété publique à la fin de l'empire
| Highly cited | No |
|---|