|
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
Slavic-Eurasian Research Center >
スラヴ研究 = Slavic Studies >
47 >
近代ロシア農民の所有観念 : 勤労原理学説再考
| Title: | 近代ロシア農民の所有観念 : 勤労原理学説再考 |
| Other Titles: | Property Consciousness of the Russian Peasant : A Rethink on the Labor Principle Theory |
| Authors: | 吉田, 浩1 Browse this author |
| Authors(alt): | Yoshida, Hiroshi1 |
| Issue Date: | 2000 |
| Publisher: | 北海道大学スラブ研究センター |
| Journal Title: | スラヴ研究 |
| Journal Title(alt): | Slavic Studies |
| Volume: | 47 |
| Start Page: | 157 |
| End Page: | 179 |
| Abstract: | The labor principle (trudovoe nachalo) is the prevailing theory in the study of Russian peasant customary law. The essence of this theory is that labor and labor alone is the source of rights to the use and enjoyment of property. But in contemporary debate, there was another explanation of the structure and characteristics of peasant law, which emphasized the emergence of private property in the post-reform period. In this paper the author puts the theory of labor principle to the test by rethinking the process by which the theory evolved and by comparing it with the other contemporary explanation. The study of Russian peasant customary law using concrete materials began in the mid-19th century. The first to point out the existence of special legal systems in the peasant world were N. Kalachev and F. Barykov. What they found was the special significance of labor in Russian village life and that family was regarded as a small economical cooperative association (artel') rather than a kin union. From this they concluded that the Russian peasantry had little interest in private property and there prevailed common ownership by the family or the peasant commune. Later, A. Efimenko and I. Orshanskii confirmed this opinion using cantonal court decisions of the 1860-70s, gathered by the State Commission of the reform of the cantonal court. But the main point of the theory of labor principle was constructed originally on the materials of the pre-emancipation period when the extended or multiple household was the basic family unit. By using the same Commission Reports, S. Pakhman, V. Mukhin and other researchers came to the opposite conclusion. Focusing on the fact that only household members, including relatives in law, could participate in the inheritance or the devolution of the family property, they stressed the importance of blood ties and concluded that the family as a collective labor unit had disappeared in the post-reform era. Pakhman took this point further. He placed great emphasis on the breakdown of extended families into the nuclear family type and the household head's authoritative power in it. His conclusion is that though there were some significant limitations, family property belonged to the household head alone. We cannot underestimate the importance of allotment land in peasant life and the labor principle seems persuasive in the explanation of the process of the repartition of this land. But at the same time we must consider those items of material culture which family members could freely deal with, such as the farmstead, household animals, cash, agricultural produce, domestic items and so on. In this context, peasants' consciousness of property rights evolved from a common to an individual one under the changing circumstances of the post-emancipation era. In this sense, we must be careful in applying the labor principle to the changing side of the customary law. Thus the debate on the labor principle contributed fundamental sources about the property consciousness of the Russian peasant to such government Commissions as the Editing Commission of Civil Codes (1882-1905), the Interior Ministry's Editing Commission on peasant legislation (1902-1904) and the Special Conference on the Needs of Agriculture (1902-1905). |
| Type: | bulletin (article) |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/2115/38934 |
| Appears in Collections: | スラヴ研究 = Slavic Studies > 47
|
|
