You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Beneath the drama of reform, revolution, and terror lay a slower and in some ways more fundamental story: the transformation of Russian society itself between 1855 and 1964. In 1855 Russia was an overwhelmingly rural, agrarian, illiterate society, organised into legally defined estates (sosloviia) and dominated by the twin facts of serfdom and the noble landlord. By 1964 it was a majority-urban, industrial, largely literate society in which the old estates had been swept away, women had entered the workforce and the professions in vast numbers, and the state had set out quite deliberately to manufacture a "new Soviet person". This lesson takes the single theme of society, social change, and living conditions and traces it across the whole century, comparing the experience of peasants and workers, the fate of the intelligentsia, the position of women, the reach of education, and the material conditions of daily life under both the tsarist and the Soviet regimes.
The theme demands care, because "social change" cuts in two directions at once. On one hand there was genuine, dramatic transformation — urbanisation, mass literacy, social mobility, the emancipation of women in law. On the other there was striking continuity in the sheer hardship of ordinary life: the peasant remained, for most of the period, poor, overworked, and subordinated; the industrial worker endured appalling conditions under the tsars and only marginally better ones under the Soviets; and the state, tsarist or Soviet, consistently subordinated popular welfare to its own strategic priorities. A thematic study must weigh these against each other — asking not merely "did society change?" (it plainly did) but "how far did the quality of ordinary lives improve, and how far did the fundamental subordination of society to the state persist?"
The organising question for this lesson is therefore: how far did Russian society and the living conditions of its people genuinely improve between 1855 and 1964, and how far did structural transformation coexist with persistent hardship and subordination to the state? Keep it in view: nearly every development below can be read as evidence of liberating change or of continuing servitude in new form.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y318 (Thematic study and interpretations): Russia and Its Rulers 1855–1964, a UG3 thematic-study unit. Y318 is assessed by thematic essays spanning the whole period 1855–1964 (AO1) — synoptic analysis of change and continuity organised by theme — and by historical interpretations (AO3) on three named depth topics: Alexander II's domestic reforms, the Provisional Government of 1917, and Khrushchev in power 1956–64 (treated in later lessons). This lesson develops the AO1 thematic-synthesis skill, tracing social change across the entire century and comparing the tsarist and Soviet experience of ordinary life.
Within our own teaching sequence we place society third, after government and the economy, because social change was in large part the consequence of the political and economic transformations examined in the preceding lessons — this is our pedagogical arrangement, not a transcription of the specification's ordering. The change-and-continuity threads foregrounded here — urbanisation, the peasant and worker experience, the position of women, education, and the persistence of hardship — run across the whole unit. (Refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording.)
Because Y318 is a thematic study, the examiner rewards command of social change over the whole period and judgements that compare the tsarist and Soviet experience, rather than a narrative of successive social policies. Throughout, keep asking how each development altered — or reproduced — the material condition and social subordination of ordinary Russians.
For most of the period the defining fact of Russian society was that the great majority of its people were peasants — poor, rural, and, in the eyes of the state, a separate and inferior estate. The peasant experience is the thread of greatest continuity in the whole social theme, because the fundamental subordination of the countryside persisted, in changing forms, from serfdom to the collective farm.
Before 1861, peasants were serfs — the legal property of their landlords, bound to the estate, subject to sale and corporal punishment. The Emancipation of 1861 ended this legal bondage but left the peasant tied to the village commune (mir) by collective redemption debt, restricted in movement by internal passports, and governed after 1889 by the gentry Land Captains. As Sheila Fitzpatrick has emphasised in her studies of the peasantry, the rural population continued to inhabit a world largely separate from that of the educated elite — a "two Russias" divide between a Westernised minority and a vast peasant mass that the reforms did not close.
| Phase | The peasant's condition |
|---|---|
| Before 1861 | Serf: property of the landlord, bound to the estate, subject to sale and the lash |
| 1861–1906 | Legally free but tied to the mir by redemption debt; movement restricted; governed by Land Captains after 1889 |
| 1906–17 | Stolypin's reforms offered a route out of the commune to private farming, but reached only a minority |
| 1917–29 | The Decree on Land (1917) and the NEP gave the peasant land and market access — a rare interval of relative autonomy |
| 1929–64 | Collectivised: bound to the kolkhoz, denied internal passports until Khrushchev, dependent on a tiny private plot |
The bitter irony of the theme is that the Soviet state, having won power partly on the peasant demand for land, ultimately re-subordinated the peasantry more completely than any tsar. Collectivisation abolished the independent peasant farm, and until Khrushchev granted them internal passports in the late 1950s, collective farmers were tied to their farms in a manner some historians have compared to a "second serfdom". The peasant of 1964 was better educated and less brutally treated than his serf great-grandfather of 1855 — but he was still poor, still subordinated, and still the sector of society whose welfare the state most consistently sacrificed.
The second great social group, growing steadily across the period, was the industrial working class — the proletariat created by Witte's industrialisation and vastly expanded by Stalin's. The worker's experience runs, like the peasant's, as a thread of persistent hardship, though its character changed sharply between the regimes.
Under the tsars, the workers created by the "great spurt" of the 1890s lived in appalling conditions — very long hours, low pay, overcrowded and insanitary barrack-housing, and no legal right to unions or protection. Concentrated in a few large cities and giant factories, this proletariat became the combustible social base of the revolutionary movements: it manned the strikes of 1905, formed the St Petersburg Soviet, and provided the workers whose bread protests triggered February 1917.
Under the Soviets, the worker's position was transformed in status but not always in comfort:
| Dimension | Tsarist worker | Soviet worker |
|---|---|---|
| Ideological status | Exploited proletariat, denied rights | Officially the ruling class, hero of socialist labour |
| Hours and discipline | Long hours, harsh factory discipline | Draconian labour laws (1930s); absenteeism criminalised; internal passports |
| Wages and goods | Low pay, few consumer goods | Real wages fell in the early 1930s; consumer goods scarce; some improvement under Khrushchev |
| Organisation | Illegal or police-sponsored unions | State-controlled trade unions; no independent bargaining |
| Mobility | Little | Real upward mobility for some (vydvizhentsy) into skilled and supervisory posts |
The comparison is genuinely double-edged. The Soviet worker was celebrated as the ruling class and enjoyed real opportunities for advancement, education, and (eventually) housing that the tsarist worker never had. Yet the daily reality — harsh discipline, scarce goods, low real wages, and the loss even of the limited freedoms of the NEP — meant that for many workers the material improvement was modest and slow. The Stakhanovite movement of the 1930s, which celebrated shock-workers to justify raising output norms, epitomised the tension: the worker was glorified in propaganda even as his quota was ruthlessly increased. Only under Khrushchev, with the housing programme and the Seven-Year Plan's turn to consumer goods, did the material condition of the ordinary worker begin to improve substantially — and even then it lagged far behind the West.
A distinctive feature of Russian society across the whole period was the intelligentsia — the educated, critically minded stratum that emerged from expanded education and understood itself as the conscience of the nation. Its changing relationship with the state is a revealing measure of social change and of the recurring tension between an educated society and an authoritarian state.
Under the tsars, the intelligentsia was in large part the product of Alexander II's reforms — the relaxed censorship, the expanded universities, the professional "third element" of teachers, doctors, and agronomists employed by the zemstva. But an educated stratum was, from the regime's point of view, dangerous: it generated the Populist and revolutionary movements, and Alexander III and Nicholas II responded with censorship, university controls, and repression. The intelligentsia thus embodied the central paradox that reform generated its own opposition.
Under the Soviets, the state's relationship with the educated stratum was equally fraught. On one hand the regime needed experts — engineers, managers, scientists — for its modernising project and created a vast new technical intelligentsia through mass education. On the other hand it distrusted independent thought: the Shakhty Trial (1928) scapegoated "bourgeois specialists", the Great Terror consumed intellectuals in large numbers, and Socialist Realism enforced ideological conformity on artists and writers. The cultural Thaw under Khrushchev permitted works such as Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) but remained bounded — Pasternak was forced to decline the Nobel Prize for Doctor Zhivago (1958), and Khrushchev could rage at abstract artists. Across the century, then, the relationship between the educated stratum and the state oscillated between cultivation and repression, with the state always seeking to harness intelligence to its purposes while suppressing its independence.
The single most measurable social change of the period was urbanisation — the transformation of Russia from an overwhelmingly rural society into a majority-urban one. This process, driven first by Witte's industrialisation and then, at explosive speed, by Stalin's, reshaped the material conditions of Russian life more profoundly than any political event.
Under the tsars, the cities grew rapidly from the 1890s, drawing peasants into a proletariat crammed into insanitary barrack-housing. Under Stalin the pace was unprecedented: the urban population roughly doubled in the 1930s as millions of peasants — by some estimates around 23 million across the decade — poured into the towns to build and man the new industries. This mass migration created acute problems:
| Aspect of urban living | Condition across the period |
|---|---|
| Housing | Chronic overcrowding throughout; barrack-housing under the tsars; communal apartments (kommunalki) and dormitories under Stalin; the mass housing programme (Khrushchyovki) only from the late 1950s |
| Sanitation and health | Poor throughout the tsarist and early Soviet periods; disease bred in overcrowded conditions; gradual improvement over time |
| Food supply | Precarious — famine under the tsars (1891) and Stalin (1932–33); rationing (1929–35); shortages persisting into the Khrushchev era |
| Amenities | Minimal for most of the period; consumer goods scarce until Khrushchev's partial shift toward them |
The housing story captures the theme's ambivalence perfectly. For most of the century, the rapid growth of the cities outran the provision of decent housing, so that the dominant experience of urban life was overcrowding — the tsarist barrack, the Stalinist communal apartment where several families shared a kitchen and bathroom. Only under Khrushchev, with the mass construction of the standardised apartment blocks derisively but affectionately known as Khrushchyovki, did millions of Soviet families gain their own apartment for the first time — modest, ugly, but private. This was a genuine and significant improvement in living conditions, and one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the quality of ordinary life, not merely its structure, did eventually change. Yet it came more than a century into the period, and even then Soviet living standards remained far below those of the West.
The changing position of women is one of the clearest measures of social transformation across the period, and again it cuts in two directions — dramatic advance in law and status alongside persistent hardship in daily reality.
Under the tsars, women — especially peasant women — occupied a subordinate position defined by patriarchal custom, the household economy, and limited legal rights, though the expansion of education from the 1860s opened the professions to a growing minority and produced notable female revolutionaries (women were prominent in People's Will and later movements).
The Bolshevik Revolution brought sweeping legal changes:
| Area | Change under the Soviets |
|---|---|
| Legal equality | Formal equality proclaimed; easy divorce and (initially) legalised abortion in the 1920s |
| Work | Women entered the industrial workforce in vast numbers during the Five-Year Plans and the war |
| Education | Mass literacy and technical training opened to women; large numbers entered medicine, teaching, engineering |
| Politics | Formal political rights, though real power remained overwhelmingly male |
| The "double burden" | Women worked and bore near-total responsibility for the household — a persistent inequality |
The Soviet record is genuinely mixed. In law and workforce participation, the transformation was real and rapid: women gained formal equality, poured into industry and the professions, and achieved literacy and training on a scale unimaginable under the tsars. Women's mass entry into the workforce — often, it must be said, in the hardest and worst-paid jobs — was a defining social change of the Stalin years and the war. Yet the reality fell short of the rhetoric: real power remained male, some of the liberal family laws of the 1920s were reversed under Stalin (who re-restricted abortion in 1936 and made divorce harder in a "retreat" to family stability), and women carried the exhausting "double burden" of paid work and unshared domestic labour. The position of women in 1964 was transformed in status and opportunity relative to 1855 — but full equality remained, in practice, unrealised.
Perhaps the most unambiguous social improvement of the period was the spread of education and literacy — an area where the direction of change was consistently upward, though the motives shifted between the regimes.
Under the tsars, education expanded but was contested and controlled. Alexander II's reforms broadened schooling and university autonomy; Alexander III's counter-reforms restricted them, and Pobedonostsev deliberately expanded church-run parish schools to keep elementary education conservative and under clerical control. By 1914 literacy was rising but still left much of the peasantry unable to read.
Under the Soviets, education became a central instrument of the state and expanded dramatically:
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Mass literacy campaigns | The likbez campaigns of the 1920s–30s drove literacy up sharply; by mid-century the USSR was substantially literate |
| Technical and higher education | Vastly expanded to supply the engineers and specialists the modernising economy demanded |
| Ideological content | Education served to inculcate loyalty and Marxist-Leninist ideology as well as skills |
| Social mobility | Education became the principal ladder of advancement into the new elite |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.