Mykhailo Drahomanov's proto-sociology


Jeffrey Stepnisky, MacEwan University; Danylo Sudyn, Ukrainain Catholic University

In this paper we present research from an ongoing project on the history of sociological theory in Ukraine. Here we focus on the work of Mykhailo Drahomanov (1841-1895). Though his formal training was in ancient history and folklore, typically Drahomanov is presented as a political philosopher. That said, in his writing he frequently refers to classical social theorists including Spencer, Comte, Tocqueville, and Marx, and his ideas were featured prominently in Max Weber’s (1995) essays on the “Russian Revolutions.” In addition, in his introduction to Drahomanov’s 1880 essay “Political and social ideas in Ukrainian folk songs” historian and Drahomanov scholar Ivan Rudnytsky says “we hope that this fragment will characterize Drahomanovs scientific methods, in which studies of folklore merge into sociology.” Though Drahomanov does not develop a systemic social theory, we argue that a set of coherent sociological ideas underlies his political and cultural writings. We break the argument into five components. First, we argue that Drahomanov is a relational thinker. This view, we suggest, is a product of Ukraine’s history as a multi-ethic nation with constantly shifting borders. Here, Drahomanov challenges essentialist views of social identity and emphasizes that identity is created through interactions that include cultural borrowing and mixture. Second, Drahomanov’s sociology emphasizes social practices, or “zvichai,” rather than essential social substances. Zvichai is a Ukrainian word often translated as “customs” though we offer a more technical sociological interpretation of the term. Drahomanov says that zvichai are local ways of “doing” and “thinking.” A society is defined by its history of zvichai – it’s ways of doing and thinking. Though zvichai resemble one another over time and place, constructing a homogenous nation, they also vary and change. As such, we suggest that rather than searching for essences (as was common in the era of nation-building), Drahomanov lays the foundation for a sociology based in the process of identity construction through shared practice. Third, consistent with his view on local practices Drahomanov’s theory of social organization is expressed though the concept of hromada. Hromada is a widely used term in Ukrainian politics, culture, and scholarship. In general, it means “community” but also refers to 19th century Ukrainian political, cultural, and intellectual societies that advocated for Ukrainian culture and opposed Russian Imperialism. We argue that hromada is a useful term to describe Drahomanov’s emphasis on small-scale social organizations connected to local practices. To be meaningful and just, social organizations must be connected to local practices. Fourth, Drahomanov offers a powerful critique of centralized, Russian Imperial bureaucracy and consequently the abstractions of modern mass society. This idea complements his attention to small scale social organization. World views, social structures, and practices imposed from above are at odds with local ways of doing and thinking, and therefore alienating. This view is also consistent with Weber’s more famous critique of rationalization. For Drahomanov, centralized bureaucracy was a source of Imperial violence and power that alienated people from local ways of life and thereby authentic forms of social organization. For this reason, centralized bureaucracy will always meet resistance and fail as a means of organizing social life. We conclude with the idea that Drahomanov offers a “dual ontology.” By dual ontology we mean that the source of authentic and valuable human being is grounded in two sources. First, consistent with Enlightenment Europe, Drahomanov advocates for individual human rights and the use of reason in organizing social life. For this reason, he is often referred to as a cosmopolitan thinker. Second, individual rights are best exercised within small-scale, self-organizing communities – hromada – that are grounded in local practices. As such, Drahomanov offers an alternative to both large-scale bureaucratic concepts of mass society and individualistic, utilitarian conceptions of society.

This paper will be presented at the following session: