Reform of serfdom and its impact on legal consciousness and legal culture of peasants

Arutyunov Erik Karenovich Doctor of History Professor, Honorary Worker of Higher Professional Education of the Russian Federation 350000, Russia, Krasnodar Krai, Krasnodar, Krasnoarmeyskaya str., 70 arutyunovek@gmail.com

IntroductionThe formation of legal awareness and legal culture took place during the historical development of the state and law, including Russia ^{[10, p. 125]}.

Most scientists studying the formation of these phenomena understand their formation as a gradual formation of a particular society, arguing that legal consciousness and legal culture live "before" and "after", as well as "in parallel" with law and is its source ^{[3, p. 37]}.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, in the circles of Russian philosophers and jurists, peasant legal education was the subject of detailed discussion. Such outstanding theorists as I.A. Ilyin, P.I. Novgorodtsev, B.A. Kistyakovsky and other lawyers and philosophers of Russia belong to the classical scientists dealing with the problems of legal consciousness and legal culture ^{[9, p. 265]}.

In explaining the relevance of the topic in science, two approaches have developed regarding the development and functioning of the legal consciousness and legal culture of peasants: some experts consider the emergence of peasant legal consciousness to be the result of religious influence, others argue that the formation of these phenomena was a natural product of the lifestyle of a rural community and a patriarchal family ^{[1, p. 15]}.

The paper presents the hypothesis that the reform of Alexander II was a turning point and an active "lever" for changing and changing the internal understanding of legal phenomena for society.  The purpose of the work is to consider the manifestation and development of legal awareness and legal culture of the population of the Russian Empire of the nineteenth century after the abolition of serfdom.

The relevance of the topic lies in the fact that the peculiarity of the peasant reform – its systemic nature - has not yet been fully studied, and the internal components of the transformation of the population, in particular such phenomena as legal awareness and legal culture, have not been touched in detail in scientific circles. The change in the social and legal status of peasants, their subconscious activity, after the abolition of serfdom led to the beginning of the transformation of the legal consciousness and legal culture of the peasantry, it was characterized by the gradual and slow inclusion of new elements and knowledge in the concept of law, as well as the rapprochement of the population with the official legal system, which, of course, was a process of duration. In particular, the rapprochement of peasants with the legislation of the country can also be traced after the reform of 1864, using the example of the participation of the population in trials as jurors, this phenomenon will be noted below.

In the water part of the work, it should be noted that I.A. Khristoforov in his dissertation research indicated that: "the abolition of serfdom, admittedly, was a key event in the history of the Russian Empire. The great importance of the peasant reform was primarily due to the fact that it became a turning point on the path of transformation of the traditional estate monarchy with its typical non-economic forms of coercion and control and low rates of economic growth into a rapidly, although very contradictory, developing country along the path of modernization" ^[13]. Undoubtedly, we fully agree with the author's opinion. Thus, the abolition of serfdom was a condition for the radical restructuring of administrative, legal, economic and social institutions, the formation of new forms of legal behavior.

For a long time, any reforms were interpreted as a forced reaction of the authorities to external pressure. This interpretation of reforms is largely fair and it is not for nothing that it still retains its influence: reforms are almost always perceived as lagging rather than advancing state measures. If we turn to history, as well as to any historical manual, we will see a number of reasons for the reform of 1861, such reasons included economic, foreign policy and social phenomena^[13].

However, such a perception, no matter how influential it may be in the public consciousness, has a very important flaw from a scientific point of view: it obscures long-term transformational processes of different levels and nature, the dynamics of which has its own logic, which does not always coincide with the situational "demands of the moment" ^[13].

That is, the direct development and adoption of any reform is often pushed into the shadow of a long process of their "maturation". This conclusion also applies to the abolition of serfdom. Of course, in the historical sciences there are many qualitative studies of the prehistory of peasant reforms, the authors of which analyze various bureaucratic and public projects for the abolition of serfdom, as well as attempts by rulers to change social relations, bring them closer to Western ones. In particular, A.D. Lyneva, V.O. Shebneva, who studied peasant legal consciousness, eventually pointed out that the reason for the implementation of agrarian reforms was P.A. Stolypin's aim was the legislator's desire to change the legal situation in the country, as well as to rationalize the economic life of the Russian peasantry ^{[5, p. 20]}.

The peasant reform was not just a reform, but was the impetus for the redistribution of the entire way of Russian society. The manifesto of Alexander II marked the abolition of serfdom and endowed peasants with personal rights and freedoms ^{[4, p. 44]}. In addition to granting peasants civil rights, there were other innovations. So Gordienko Yu.G. in her work pointed out that in the process of implementing the reform, new bodies of peasant local self-government were formed. Since 1861, peasants freed from serfdom were assigned to volosts. The management of the volosts was given to peasant organizations. Rural communities, created at that time from the peasants of one landowner, had their own administration, subordinated to the volost ^[2]. In addition to the above, courts appeared in the volosts, which regulated the legal conflicts of the peasant population.

Thus, as a result of the reform of 1861, the social status of the peasantry changed. A single estate appeared, freed from serfdom, endowed with self-government and civil rights. In this case, it is possible to declare the origin of the natural-legal direction in the state, where the personality occupies a central place.

Discussion and results.The majority of the population of the Russian Empire in everyday life was guided by traditional concepts of regulation of public relations based on customary law, as well as on religious prescriptions.

  The code of laws of the Russian Empire of 1832, in force at that time, could not provide any prerequisites for the development of social and legal relations of peasants, since dozens of "huge" volumes were not communicated to the entire population of the Russian Empire.

Thus, according to B. N. Mironov, it can be determined that the rural population of the European part of the Russian Empire, for example, in 1869 was about 90% of the total population of the country ^{[6, p. 315]}.

The above proportion of the population is confirmed by the data of the general population census^[8]. The population of the Russian Empire was 125,680,682 inhabitants. 78.9% of the population of the Russian Empire was illiterate. The overwhelming majority of the population of the period under review is not able to read and write. It is concluded here that most of the Russian Empire, even after the reform, was in a state of legal nihilism and illiteracy in relation to the legislation of the country.

Focusing on the conscious activity of the peasants, we believe that the fundamental reason for the legal illiteracy of the population was precisely the long-term domination of serfdom, it consolidated the legal dependence of the peasantry, created adverse consequences for the legal education and development of the peasant population. Serfdom infringed not only rights, but also restricted access to the educational environment. As you know, the legal culture of a person means education, general awareness of a person, where one of the most important elements is legal awareness. In connection with the above, the regularity of the legal illiteracy of peasant society is revealed.

As a result, as I. Orshansky noted, the "mass of the people" was in the same attitude to Russian state legislation, "as the mass of Hindus to English justice" - "both there and here there is a sharp discord between legal concepts" ^[14]. That is, in society, people did not understand legal regulations, and if they did, it was variably.

The revealed regularity determined the characteristic features of the peasant idea and attitude to law. Thus, the religious way of life, class isolation, lack of education, created stable stereotypes of misconceptions about legal phenomena. Thus, the population intuitively tried to live in the legal field, applying the usual rules of law to regulate relations.

The prolonged isolation of peasants in the system of serfdom hindered the process of individualization of personal growth of legal status. At the same time, it is individuality that gives impetus to the formation of views, assessments and orientation of a person.

In his work, Zagornov A.A. highlights an important phenomenon that was characteristic of the peasant community – particularism.

As is known, particularism in law represents a stable class and territorial division of law, the absence of an integral national system of law, which was especially characteristic of medieval Germany ^{[14, p. 13]}. If we turn to the history of Russia, particularism was also present in the nineteenth century. The territory of the Russian Empire was the largest in comparison with other states. Just as now, in some parts of the territory of the state, their own traditions and legal phenomena prevailed, in particular, this is characteristic of the Caucasian peoples. The diversity of customs was a factor determining the existence of judicial institutions adapted to local conditions. In this case, we are talking about Parish courts.

Thus, it can be concluded that the peasant understanding of law could not in any way be differentiated into sectoral forms of legal consciousness. In this regard, many criminal acts of that time were not settled by the population according to the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire.

After the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of volost and magistrate courts, the assessment of fights and insults began to change.

Before the reform, such actions were commonplace and were not prosecuted. Now they began to occupy a significant place in the courts. In addition to the growth of personal status, this process was influenced by the fact that the offended could receive monetary compensation ^[7]. In connection with the above, it can be summed up that the peasants began to take legal measures to protect their interests.

Conducting a comparative analysis of scientists who addressed the problem of the formation of the legal consciousness of Russian society, it is necessary to highlight the opinion of the American scientist R.S. Wortman.

Thus, R.S. Wortman in his work "Rulers and Judges: The Development of Legal Consciousness in Imperial Russia" draws attention to the phenomenon of volost courts - a post-reform institution, which in its judicial activity could rely on the norms of unwritten, customary law.

Volost courts, according to R.S. Wortman, were a by-product of the abolition of serfdom and the native Russian habit of resorting to self-government as a cheap form of administration. However, as a result of this legislative initiative, legal consciousness and legal culture began to form - at least, habits of resorting to legal protection^{[11, p. 482]}.

We assume that the population in the period under review began to evaluate their actions not only from the standpoint of religious and moral attitudes, but also from the point of view of law. Volost courts were created in order to facilitate the peasants' transition from traditional people's justice to state justice.

Touching upon civil legal relations, it should be said here that such a phenomenon as reconciliation is characteristic of the peasant community. That is, when conflict situations arose among themselves, the peasants tried to settle it by reconciliation. If we compare it with modern conditions, we can draw an analogy with the mediation procedure. The tendency to resolve cases by reconciliation was based on the prolonged isolation of the peasant class and was associated with distrust of official law and strict formal procedures ^{[15, p. 62]}.

In peasant society, economic interest prevailed. That is, all epistemological activity took place within the framework of the economic function of the peasant community. Peasant justice was focused on preserving and maintaining the integrity and solvency of the peasant economy. In this regard, within the framework of economic detail, the collective interest prevailed over the individual. Touching upon the issue of individual legal consciousness, we have established another reason for the inhibition of this form.

I. Orshansky drew attention to this fact. Thus, the historian pointed out that "in rural life, every peasant is considered primarily and primarily as a member of the world, and then as an independent person."

As mentioned above, the abolition of serfdom and the establishment of peasant legal relations largely depended on the success of the reorganization of the system of local justice and self-government.

During the steady period of serfdom, the peasants inherited special legal relations, identified in their minds with a sense of justice.

The judicial reform of 1864 introduced the institution of jurors. This institute was designed to contribute to the construction of the rule of law, the construction of openness in the consideration of cases, overcoming legal illiteracy, increasing the interest of the population in the legal phenomena of the country, leveling the perception of class and peasant legal culture.

When analyzing the historical and scientific literature, two opposing opinions were found regarding the perception of the introduction of jury trials by peasants.

Thus, some authors believe that the peasant community was not interested in participating in court proceedings, perceiving such participation as litigation. Other authors emphasize that the introduction of a jury trial is an important phenomenon for the development of the rule of law, and the peasants received this novel positively, participation in the official trial was an honorable event for them.

It should be said that participation in the meetings of the district courts introduced the peasant population to the official laws of the country and gradually developed their legal culture, making them intermediaries between the official legal culture and traditional established orders.

At the same time, the granting of freedom and rights to rural residents opened up prospects for the development of capitalist relations in the countryside, and the emergence of private property.

The legal consciousness of the Russian peasantry can be called transitional.  Retreating under the onslaught of market capitalist relations, the common law of community members underwent severe deformation and began to collapse. Economic, political, social and cultural conditions were required for the transition to civil legal relations. Nowhere and never did they arise quickly or easily, so the social behavior of the peasantry was characterized by increasing instability. In its restless outlines, the formidable scale of the impending revolution could be guessed.

The changed economic conditions of peasant life had a serious impact in this direction: the price of land increased, which changed the attitude towards it; economic success now depended more on personal skill, and not on the natural forces of nature; the area of non-agricultural income expanded; the mobility of peasants increased. All these innovations have significantly changed the peasant way of life.

The implementation of the Stolypin land reform did not weaken, but strengthened the peasant movement, which was enriched with new forms of struggle. The dominant role in the peasant struggle began to be played by the active protection of their rights, stubborn resistance to the government administration ^[15].

The ongoing reforms were aimed at creating favorable internal conditions for the development of society. However, such innovations were perceived painfully. The beginning of the collapse of the community was accompanied by an increase in conflicts in the peasant environment.

Thus, the legal behavior of the peasantry was characterized by instability and anxiety. As a result, intense work was to be done on the cultural and social development of the village on new principles. We assume that in this regard, the legal system of the state has changed in the history of Russia. Freedom and equality, the economic system of production and distribution, private property could not exist with the established monarchical system.

Conclusion.Summarizing the analysis done, we can conclude that the given hypothesis of the study was confirmed.

The reform of the abolition of serfdom was of great importance for the development of legal awareness and legal culture of the peasant population. Thus, the change in the social and legal status of peasants, their subconscious activity, after the abolition of serfdom led to the beginning of the transformation of the legal consciousness and legal culture of the peasantry, it was characterized by the gradual and slow inclusion of new elements and knowledge in the concept of law, as well as the rapprochement of the population with the official legal system, which, of course, was a process of duration. As a result of the reform of 1861, the social status of the peasantry changed. A single estate appeared, freed from serfdom, endowed with self-government and civil rights. In this case, it is possible to declare the origin of the natural-legal direction in the state, where the personality occupies a central place.

Thus, the reform of Alexander II marked the development of the natural law direction, where the individual acts as the foundation of the state. The reform of 1861 is a historical event in the history of Russia and an "eternal" phenomenon for discussion and analysis.