Soviet village- The village of Viryatino in the past and present

Period:1913-1956
Source: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Moscow 1958

The Institute of Ethnography. N. N. Miklukho-Maclay

New Series, Volume XLI

"The village of Viryatino in the past and present" Experience of ethnographic study of the Russian collective farm village


Editorial
Introduction
Part one. Pre-revolutionary Russian village

Part two. Soviet village 

Economic life of the modern village

The architectural appearance of Viryatin. modern rural dwelling

Modern clothes of Viryatin residents

Family and family life

Social life of the village

Cultural revolution in the countryside

Editorial

This monograph is a collective work of researchers from the Institute of Ethnography named after V.I. N. N. Miklukho-Maclay of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

The collection of field ethnographic materials for the monograph was carried out by the Tambov detachment of the Russian ethnographic expedition, consisting of ethnographers V. Yu. Krupyanskaya (head of the detachment), JI. A. Pushka-reva, S. B. Rozhdestvenskaya, JI.H. Chizhikova, M. N. Shmeleva, graduate student I. A. Brock, musicologist L. V. Kulakovsky, architect R. P. Aldonina, photographers S. N. Bogachev, V. V. Wentzel, I. G. Gricher and N. N. Nemnonova. Among the several dozen informants who gave the detachment officers information about the life of the village, it is necessary to especially note E. A. Dyakova, G. P. Dyakov, S. S. Kalmykov, P. S. Malakhov, I. P. Malakhov. S. M. Ozhogin, chairman of the Lenin Way collective farm, was a permanent consultant on agricultural issues.

Archival materials used in the monograph were identified by V. Yu. Krupyanskaya and L. A. Pushkareva.

Head of the team P. I. Kushner.

When writing a monograph, the authors of individual chapters used materials on the relevant topic collected by all members of the team.

The main authors of individual chapters are: 

Introduction and chapters 

I - P. I. Kushner; chapters II - L. N., Chizhikova; chapter III - M. N. Shmelev; chapter IV - V. Yu. Krupyanskaya; chapters V and VI - L. A. Pushkareva; chapter VII: section 1 - P.I. Kushner, section 2 - S. M. Ozhogin and P. I. Kushner, section 3 - V. Yu. Krupyanskaya; chapter VIII - L. N. Chizhikova; chapter IX - M. N. Shmelev; chapter X - V. Yu. Krupyanskaya; chapters XI and XII - L. A. Pushkareva.

To simplify references under the text, the following abbreviations are used in the monograph when indicating sources:

Archive of the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR - Archive of field ethnographic materials of the Institute of Ethnography. N. N. Miklukho-Maclay of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

Archive of the Russian Geographical Society - Archive of the All-Union Geographical Society.

VO - Voronezh ethnographic detachment.

GATO - State Archive of the Tambov Region.

TO - Tambov ethnographic detachment.

f. RE - fund of the Russian ethnographic expedition.

Introduction

The main goal of the ethnographic study of the modern village is the village of Viryatino (brief historical background). How ethnographers studied the life of this village. —Family census conducted in the village in the summer of 1953—Socialist restructuring of rural life. - Cultural ties of the village of Viryatina with the whole country.

Determining the place of science in socialist society, V. I. Lenin noted its great role in the preparation of those transformations that can "make the life of all working people the easiest, providing the opportunity for well-being" 1.

In studying the everyday life of the masses, Soviet ethnographers are primarily guided by this task, striving to penetrate into the very depths of people's life and give an unvarnished, truthful picture of reality. They cannot remain silent about the difficulties that stand in the way of the builders of communism, but the subject of their special attention is all manifestations of the collective experience of millions of working people, which hasten the completion of the building of socialism and facilitate the gradual transition to communism.

Life in the cities and industrial centers of the USSR at the present time is still significantly different in its way of life from the life of the Soviet countryside. The socialist restructuring of the life of the urban population is proceeding faster than the restructuring of the life of the rural population; meanwhile, for the further cultural flourishing of the country, a gradual leveling of life in the city and countryside is necessary.

How, then, can this reorganization in the countryside be accelerated, how can life in the countryside be brought closer to life in the socialist cities? This question, which in our time is acquiring exceptionally great importance, is answered by those decisions of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which are aimed at further raising the level of agriculture and the cultural level of the collective-farm peasantry. “The Congress considers,” these decisions say, “that at the present time, when the economic possibilities of many collective farms have grown significantly, it is necessary, along with the all-round expansion of production, which should always be in the foreground, to pay serious attention to the construction of residential buildings, clubs, children's and other cultural institutions" 2. The congress considered it necessary to resolutely increase attention to the everyday needs of the population, both in town and in the countryside. Meanwhile, it must be noted that the everyday needs of the rural population, its cultural needs remain insufficiently studied, and ethnographers are faced with the urgent task of paying special attention to the systematic and in-depth study of the life of the modern village.

This publication represents the first experience of such work. Therefore, the authors decided to limit the circle of their observations to the framework of only one village, but to cover, as far as possible, all aspects of rural life. Having studied the culture and life of this village in such a monographic plan, they hoped to collect versatile material testifying to the interdependence of individual aspects of people's life and the influence of the socialist system on the life of the collective farm peasantry. In undertaking this study, the authors may already have considered some of the experience of other ethnographers. In 1954, the Institute of Ethnography. N. N. Miklukho-Maklai of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR published a monograph on the village of Chkalovsk in the Tajik SSR, entitled "Culture and life of the Tajik collective farm peasantry." In 1955 The Institute of History and Archeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR published another study - "The past and present of the village of Aikiran" (Namangan region of the Uzbek SSR). The authors of this monograph decided to study the life Russian village.

Finding a suitable object for research was not an easy task. From the very beginning of the search, none of the members of the team of authors set themselves the utopian goal of finding such a Russian village, whose history in the past and modern life would be “typical” for any Soviet village and “demonstrative” for the entire Russian people. There are no such villages. The specific situation in the historical development of one or another village may have many similarities with the history of nearby villages located in the same district or even region. But it is only possible to assume the possibility of the existence of some "demonstrative" villages that developed equally throughout the territory of the settlement of the Russian people if we completely abstract ourselves from any specific situation and replace the actual historical development with a bare sociological scheme.

The authors of this study wanted to find an ordinary Russian village, located in the old, traditionally agricultural, grain regions, in whose economy the grain direction is still preserved. This village could characterize the course of historical development in the area in which it was located. But the social processes currently developing in it would make it possible to understand the life of similar villages located in the neighborhood and in similar conditions. Let's say, for example, the Russian village of the black earth zone made it possible to understand the rural life of similar villages in the same zone; a village located in flax-growing areas would help to understand the specifics of the economy and life of flax-growing villages in the same areas, etc.

After many exploration trips to the Voronezh and Tambov regions, in which the grain economy of the Russian population has deep historical roots, it was decided to stop at the village of Viryatin, Sosnovsky district, Tambov region. The inhabitants of this village have been engaged in arable farming since ancient times, and at present the grain direction, together with animal husbandry, which is in the background, is the leading one in their economy. Since the second half of the 19th century, after the land robbery of the peasants under the reform of 1861, otkhodnichestvo began to develop in the village, and non-agricultural crafts significantly changed the life of the population.

An ethnographic study of such a village can have a twofold purpose: firstly, to reveal what happened in this Russian village after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution and what kind of life has developed here at the present time; secondly, to study the influence of the Russian working class on the peasantry in the past (through otkhodnichestvo), on its way of life, customs, and ideology.

Viryatino is located 12 km from the railway station and the district center Sosnovka. In terms of population, this is a medium-sized village (as of January 1, 1955, it had 1,442 residents and, in addition, 323 people were temporarily absent). The economic life of the village is concentrated in the "Put Lenina" collective farm, which is also average in terms of its economic indicators.

For three years (1952-1954), the authors of this study traveled in summer and winter to the village of Viryatino and lived there for months. Along with personal observations and inquiries, ethnographers used documentary materials (statistical information, minutes of general meetings, annual reports of the collective farm, etc.), conducted questionnaire surveys, studied consumer budgets, used all the methods available to them to fix what could be measured, photographed, sketched, record on sound or film. The purpose of the study was not a simple reflection of the current state: it was necessary to specifically highlight the process of development of the village, the reflection of the most important social phenomena in the life of the population of Viryatino. A simple opposition of the present to the past did not ensure the achievement of the goals set by the authors. Only consistent historicism made it possible to establish the origin of phenomena, the causal dependence of the changes taking place, to explain the essence of the socialist restructuring of life and to make understandable the reasons that accelerate or, conversely, slow down the process of development. Following this principle, the authors tried to implement it in their work, which - after field research in the village - led them to the archives. The materials used by the Tambov regional archive turned out to be very important for understanding the former life of the village of Viryatina. Copies of documents extracted from the archives were studied by ethnographers together with Viryatinsky activists-old-timers. When the monograph was written, it was discussed in Viryatin.

* * *

The village of Viryatino is an old Russian village. It apparently got its name from the features of the area on which it is located - a small sandy elevation among marshes and flood meadows in the floodplain of the river. Chelnova (a tributary of the Tsna river). Such hills were previously called "verticals". The exact time of the origin of the village is unknown; it can be assumed that it refers to the beginning of the 17th century, when during the colonization of the southern regions of the Russian state, “skhodtsy” settled in this area, trying to escape from feudal exploitation by peasants, and service instrument people, who later turned into single-palace residents. In the donation record of 1643 of the Mamontov Pustosh monastery, it is mentioned that the peasant of the village of Viryatina Pakida donated his land to the monastery along the river. Chelnova. In 1796, Catherine II “granted” the local peasants of the village of Viryatina to the landowner Davydov. Since that time, two groups of the population, different in their social status, lived side by side in the village: one-palaces, who later became state peasants, and serfs. On the eve of the abolition of serfdom, according to the revision census of 1857, there were 116 state peasants and 1,407 serfs in Viryatyn. 

After the abolition of serfdom, the social distinctions between former state peasants and former serfs gradually faded. In the village, however, there were two communities assigned to different volosts. In both communities, after the reform of 1861, the peasants, deprived of the most fertile land and pastures, were forced to engage in waste trades, of which the seasonal retreat to the coal industry was of the greatest importance. Like many other villages in the Tambov region, Viryatino gradually turned into one of the reservoirs of labor for the mines of the Donets Basin.

The connection of the village with the industrial regions, which grew stronger every decade as capitalism developed in Russia and reached its greatest development in the years preceding the First World War, left a certain imprint on the life of the Viryatians. Compared to villages that lived only from agriculture and little resorted to third-party crafts, the population of the village of Viryatina was distinguished by a wide variety of their economic skills: the Viryatians were not only cultivators, but also carpenters, lumberjacks, diggers, and bricklayers. From the Donbass, through otkhodniks, some cultural skills and advanced ideas penetrated into the village.

During the civil war, Viryatinsky otkhodnik miners fought in the ranks of the Red Guard, took part in the liquidation of Antonovshchina. During the period of collectivization of agriculture, agitators and organizers of collective farms came out of this village to help lagging neighbors. Undoubtedly, this was also affected by the historical ties of the Viryatians with the industrial Donbass, which revolutionized those rural centers that supplied it with labor.

In 1930, the agricultural artel "Lenin's Way" was organized in the village. At present, this is a medium-sized collective farm with a stable and profitable economy, the prospects for further development of which are quite clear.

The main incomes of collective farm families in the village of Viryatina are determined, as elsewhere, by participation in the public economy; household incomes are of secondary importance. As a result, the intra-farm activities of collective-farm households and the order of family life of collective farmers are built in relation to the needs of collective-farm production. In this regard, the authors of this study studied the economy of collective farm families in close connection with the economy of the collective farm itself. Budget surveys of several dozen collective farm households were carried out. At the same time, it turned out that income from labor in the public economy affects not only the financial situation of the family as a whole, but also the internal relationships of its members.

Examine the family relationships of each Viryatinsky. family was impossible, and such a goal was not set; it was only necessary to establish the basic nature of family relations in the village and the differences that are characteristic of one or another group of families (depending on the number of children and dependents in families, the earnings of family members, their cultural level). There were 456 families in the village in 1953; what groups these families should be divided into when studying the budgets and which families should be included in these groups - it was impossible to solve such questions by simple observation or questioning. Household lists, which in general are a fairly good basis for various comparisons - since these lists contain accurate information about the economy of each collective farm household, the size of the family, the age and education of its members - did not, however, give enough material to judge the relationship. I had to conduct a special family census throughout the village. Information was collected on the number of families, their gender and age composition, family relationships, profession, and education of family members, on persons living on the side, but financially supporting their relatives in Viryatin, on housing conditions, the time of construction and forms of dwellings, on cultural inquiries population. The statistical development of the information obtained made it possible to prepare a breakdown of families into groups, within each of which two or three families were studied. living on the side, but financially supporting their relatives in Viryatin, about living conditions, the time of construction and forms of dwellings, about the cultural needs of the population. The statistical development of the information obtained made it possible to prepare a breakdown of families into groups, within each of which two or three families were studied. living on the side, but financially supporting their relatives in Viryatin, about living conditions, the time of construction and forms of dwellings, about the cultural needs of the population. The statistical development of the information obtained made it possible to prepare a breakdown of families into groups, within each of which two or three families were studied.

Together with budget surveys, the family census provided grounds for analysis and generalizations concerning the family structure of the Viryatinsky population, its cultural level and many aspects of material life.

The family census showed that the so-called large family in the village of Viryatino is outdated. But the small modern family of Viryatians does not break kinship with those who go to the side and leave the village. Such preservation of family ties is facilitated by the historical traditions of otkhodnichestvo. Under Soviet rule, the connection between the village and the industrial regions and the city not only did not decrease, but even increased. The increasing mechanization of agriculture enables the collective farm to release a certain amount of labor every year and direct it to industry. In 1953, as the family census showed, almost 22% of the population lived and worked outside Viryatin; these people maintained close family ties with families living in the village, sent them part of their earnings (parents, brothers, sisters, and other minor relatives).

The material culture of the population, as an ethnographic study of the countryside has revealed, has undergone great changes not only in comparison with the pre-revolutionary period, but especially over the past two decades: this is reflected primarily in the form of housing and clothing. Particularly indicative are the changes that have taken place in the people's dwelling.

Traditional for the area, the South Great Russian log huts, as well as the brick houses that became widespread in the village of Viryatino in the 1890-1900s, were subjected during the Soviet era - especially after the transition to collective farming - to re-equipment caused by the growth of cultural needs and the cultural level of the population. Many new, more spacious log houses have been built in the village. However, the Russian national tradition in housing construction is steadfastly preserved during all restructurings and new buildings, being enriched with new forms. Heating has also undergone modernization - although to a lesser extent than the houses themselves.

Separate aspects of peasant life in different periods of the history of the village of Viryatina, the state of public education, health care, and forms of public life are studied in more detail.

During the years of socialist construction, as was revealed in the study of the countryside, the cultural image of the population has changed radically. The former isolation of the countryside from the political and cultural centers of the country has become a thing of the past, the cultural gap between the city and the countryside has disappeared: the Soviet village of Viryatino is firmly connected by its interests and all its life with the socialist cities of the country. The social ties of the village are supplemented by the personal ties of Viryatinsky residents with relatives and relatives living in different regions and republics of the Soviet Union. The map (Fig. 1) shows the threads that stretch to people from Viryatin, who do not break the constant connection with their native village.

In Viryatino, along with collective farmers, there are dozens of workers and employees working on the Lenin's Way collective farm, in rural institutions and industrial enterprises. Among the inhabitants of the village - collective farmers there are representatives of various specialties: field farmers and livestock breeders, gardeners, beekeepers, forestry specialists and agronomists, veterinarians and livestock specialists, electrical engineers and electricians, tractor drivers, combine operators, drivers, locksmiths, blacksmiths, turners, carpenters, carpenters, masons , saddlers, basket makers, tinsmiths, tailors, shoemakers, accountants, accountants, co-operators, administrative employees, teachers and others - dozens of professions, most of which were completely absent in the old village. The village has its own rather numerous intelligentsia, and from here dozens of young men and women go to study at higher educational institutions and technical schools every year.

If we consider that on the eve of the Great October Revolution, most of the inhabitants of Viryatin were illiterate and that even among the teachers there was not a single person with a higher education, then the great changes that took place in this village during the years of Soviet power are clearly presented.

Rural life has also undergone tremendous changes, which in general corresponds to socialist relations. But the process of socialist restructuring of life is still not completed in a number of links. Changes in the way of life of the people always somewhat lag behind the pace of change in the political and social system: even during periods of social revolution, as is proved by the history of socialist construction in our country, the formation of a new way of life takes a considerable amount of time. Social life adapts to new conditions faster, while family relations and domestic life are transformed more slowly. It is not surprising, therefore, that in Viryatyn, as in other villages of the Soviet Union, along with new, well-defined socialist forms, fairly tenacious remnants of the past continue to be preserved in everyday life, many of which are associated with religion.

In terms of the nature of cultural services, the village of Viryatino is not inferior to any regional center, but the cultural needs of rural residents are growing so rapidly that the current state of affairs cannot satisfy their needs. The village clearly lacks good organizers of mass cultural and educational work and there are almost no qualified cadres of artistic directors who can create a four-part choir, teach choir members to read music, organize an orchestra of folk instruments, help talented singers, readers, dancers prepare for admission to the appropriate schools. and acquire some qualifications. If, in order to strengthen the cadres of collective farm leaders and specialists in agriculture, it was necessary, as the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union send to the countryside "many thousands of Communists and non-Party workers from cities and industrial centers," then the village cadres of specialists in cultural services to the population demand the same replenishment. The socialist city must again come to the aid of the collective-farm countryside.

In the Soviet Union there are many villages, stanitsas and settlements which are the centers of large, most advanced collective farms known throughout the country and deservedly renowned for their economic performance. These collective farms supply the industrial centers with a large number of agricultural products, provide technical raw materials for industry, and provide their members with high incomes. But there are even more villages in the country like Viryatin; the collective farms in them do not have such a developed economy as those of the noble advanced workers, and the income from this economy is more modest, but they grow from year to year. The prosperity of collective farmers in these villages has become a mass phenomenon. Each of these villages has its own history, its own traditions, its own characteristics. This monograph does not pretend to cover the modern life of all villages with a Russian population: to carry out such a task, it would be necessary to study monographically not one, but many dozens of Russian villages in various regions of the RSFSR. However, despite the fact that this study is devoted to the analysis of the specific conditions of rural life in one of the ordinary villages of the Black Earth zone, the reader will find in it much that can be observed in other Russian villages.

The socialist system, the active participation of the Soviet people in the struggle for a further increase in the standard of living, and finally, the specifics of agricultural production—all this creates common features in the way of life of many villages, which in other respects still differ in their historically developed features. That is why a monograph on one village may prove useful to all rural activists when, having assessed the path of historical development they have traveled, they want to more clearly imagine the tasks of the day, those tasks whose solution is necessary to complete the socialist restructuring of life in the Soviet countryside.

Notes:

1 V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 27, p. 375.

2 “Resolutions of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. February 14-25, 1956. Gospolitizdat, 1956, p. 16.