The approaches to social and occupational structure of Russian provincial urban centers at the end of the 19 th century : examples of Tobolsk and Tambov

The considerable socioeconomic changes that took place in the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th century and were a driving force for modernization and urbanization processes, led to social transformations that were most distinct in big gubernial centers. One can name three approaches to urban social structure in Russian historiography. These are a traditional approach based on the soslovie hierarchy of urban citizens,15 the rigid class approach that dominated Soviet studies,2 6 and a stratification approach aimed at analyzing social status from the viewpoint of several dimensions (occupation, income, sosloviye, power and authority, etc.).37 Today some foreign and Russian scholars think that classes and

class distribution are a particular case of social stratification. 4For instance, some post-Soviet sociologists consider the class approach a type of social stratification based on economic factors like possession of property and material values. 5he use of the traditional (sosloviye based) approach when analyzing social structure is determined by the fact that the state legislated the sosloviye structure of Russian society.The whole population of the Russian Empire in accordance with The Code of the Law of the Russian Empire of 1832, vol.9, was divided into natives, minorities (inorodtsy) and foreigners.Russian citizens were divided into four main sosloviya: the nobility, the clergy, urban population and rural population (peasants).These sosloviye groups were further divided into several subcategories.For instance, the urban population included merchants, petty bourgeoisie (meshchane), artisans, etc. 6 To record a person's sosloviye was needed for church statistics (parish register books) and civil statistics (censuses).The importance of sosloviye structure in prerevolutionary Russia was acknowledged by many authors 7 who noted that "the sosloviye paradigm was a part of mass public conscience". 8owever, there were those at the beginning of the 20 th century who already noted the vagueness and changeability of the sosloviye structure as well as more diverse social categories than those sosloviya had to include.It was argued, for example, that the main social status indicator should rather be the information about an individual's occupation and position in the professional stratification.Following such a rationale, when reconstructing social composition in Russia, the renowned Russian scholars Yuliy Yanson and Boris Kadomtsev considered the information about the person's position within the status and post hierarchy of his occupation and divided those employed in a certain occupation into owners, white collar workers and blue collar workers. 9Another prerevolutionary Russian 4 Irving Kraus, Stratification, Class, and Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1976), 12, 15-16;  Ovsej I. Škaratan, Vadim V. Radaev, Social'naâ stratifikaciâ (Moskva: Nauka, 1995), 40. 5 Nikolaenko, "Professional'naâ stratifikaciâ", 45. 6 Zakony o sostoâniâh.Svod zakonov, t.IX.Izd.1899 g., po prod 1906, 1908 i 1909 gg., sost.Âkov А. Kantorovič (Sankt Peterburg: Pravo, 1911), 1-3. 7Oleg M. Ul'ânov, "Prostranstvenno-tipologičeskij analiz social'noj struktury naseleniâ krupnogo goroda poreformennogo vremeni (po materialam perepisi naseleniâ Moskvy 1882 g.)", in: Processy urbanizacii v Central'noj Rossii i Sibiri (Barnaul: Izdatel'stvo Аltajskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2005), 11.
Modern historiography is characterized by the multidimensional stratification approach which considers such "markers" of social status as occupation, title, education, position, place of work, income level and property.Among the first to employ stratification approaches and methods to study the real social structure of Soviet and post-Soviet society were Ovsei Shkaratan and Vadim Radaev. 14Stratification of Russian society sosloviya before 1917 on the basis of income data and occupational data has been carried out by Boris Mironov. 15he history of cities made a certain contribution to the development of methods and approaches to comparative studies of demographic, social and occupational structure.Urban history which developed intensely in the 1980s and1990s covers theoretical and methodological issues, as well as comparisons of economic, demographic and social processes in cities of different countries and epochs. 16igration processes understood as urbanization and industrialization drivers were given special attention.17as were the ways in which urbanization and industrialization influenced demographic processes in cities, family structure in particular. 18ata comparability is an important concern in urban history research.In this respect, the Historical International Classification of Occupations is of special interest as it was developed and used to study the occupational structure of urban and rural populations as well. 19This classification was actively employed to carry out studies in the sphere of social and economic history on the basis of harmonized occupational data (Ineke Maas, Marco H. D. Van Leeuwen). 20n spite of the fact that there are extensive studies of Russian social stratification as a whole, concrete historical studies present a diversity of methods and approaches, thus oftentimes leading to incomparable results.Part of the problem in this regard relates to the peculiarities of the commonly employed historical source material, rather than to undeveloped methods themselves.In contrast to European countries in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, where the recorded occupation was the main social status marker, in Russia the occupational data were not registered systematically.In this context, it is important to stress that the census data used in the present article (including the 1897 First General Population Census) have the advantage of reflecting information both on sosloviya and occupational structure.This information is generally of a unified form across many different regions of Russia where the relevant data have been preserved.As such, it presents a unique source of information providing for the reconstruction of the social and occupation composition and comparative study of separate cities and regions as well.The approaches to social and occupational structure of Russian provincial urban centers...

Social class structure of Tobolsk and Tambov
By the end of the 19 th century and early 20 th century Tambov and Tobolsk were typical provincial gubernial centers which had both similar features of agrarian administrative centers and specific regional features.Prerevolutionary statistics classified these cities in the third category with a population from 20,000 to 100,000 people.The 1897 census registered 20,425 inhabitants in Tobolsk and 48,015 inhabitants in Tambov. 21There were 67 cities of similar kind in the Russian Empire. 22The cities were administrative, religious and cultural centers and housed many state, public, religious, medical, educational and cultural institutions. 23Both cities had military posts that determined age and sex structure of their populations.As big cities of agrarian regions, Tobolsk and Tambov were attractive in terms of seasonal and temporary work which meant peasant in-migration in winter.
At the same time the cities differed economically primarily due to railway transportation.Tambov and most part of Tambov guberniya had been active in railway transportation since the 1870s, whereas Tobolsk in the late 19 th century was away from major trade routes and the Trans-Siberian Railway which was being constructed at the time.The latter circumstance influenced the pace of modernization and population mobility as a whole.Moreover, Tobolsk, which had been considered the capital of Siberia till the late 19 th century, faced the results of voluntary and forced (exiles, prisons) migrations in the second half of the 19 th century which influenced the city's social structure.
The most complex source on the social class and occupational structure of the city are the results of the 1897 census, both aggregate and microdata, as well as the thematic databases based on them, such as "Tobolsk Population in 1897" (by Vladimirov V.N, Bryukhanova E.A., Koldakov D.V. and Silina I.G.) and "Russian Empire Occupations in the late 19 th -Early 20 th Centuries" (http://hcod.asu. 23Dmitrij А. Аlisov, "Infrastruktura goroda Tobol'ska vo vtoroj polovine XIX -načale XX v.", Gumanitarnye nauki v Sibiri.Seriâ: Otečestvennaâ istoriâ, 2 (1999): 17-21; Kapiton M. Golodnikov, Tobol'skaâ guberniâ nakanune 300 letnej godovŝiny zavoevaniâ Sibiri (Tobol'sk: Tipografiâ Tobol'skogo gubernskogo pravleniâ, 1881), 75-78; N.V. Strekalova, "K istorii voprosa razvitiâ obrazovaniâ v Tambove v XVIII -načale XX v.", Molodež' i socium 3 (15) (2013): 11-14; Ol'ga M. Zajceva et al., "K probleme gorodskogo upravleniâ i samoupravleniâ v XIX -načale XX vv.(na materialah Tambova)", in: Tambov v prošlom nastoâŝem i buduŝem.Mat-ly VI Vseross.nauč.konf.,  posvâŝ.380-letiû g.Tambova (Tambov: OOO «TPS», 2016), 118-123.ru/) (by Bryukhanova E.A. and Ivanov D.N.).Tambov databases are based on microdata which include the information on sosloviya, occupations and property, derived from tax books of real estate (okladnye knigi nedvizhymykh imushchestv) of the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries (by Zaytsev О.М. and Strekalov N.V.), and official reference books (pamyatnye knizhki) of Tambovskaya Guberniya (by Zaitseva О.М. and Strekalova N.V.). 24he 1897 census data reveal both similarities and regional specificity of the urbanization processes in Tobolsk and Tambov (Table 1).One similar feature is a relatively (in comparison with the total guberniya data) high share of nobility and civil servants in both locations and the clergy.The privileged sosloviye amounted to over 15% of the total population, while the rest of the population 24 Ol'ga M. Zajceva, Natal'â V. Strekalova, "Bazy dannyh po izučeniû služaŝih Central'no-Černozemnogo regiona v konce XIX -načale XX vv.", in: Informacionnyj bûlleten' Аssociacii «Istoriâ i komp 'ûter», 36 (Moskva: Izd-vo Moskovskogo universiteta, 2010), 67-69.were peasants or members of the urban social class.It is in the ratio of these two multiple sosloviya categories that the cities differ.Half of Tambov citizens were "rural sosloviye members" (49.8%) while in Tobolsk this share equaled 37.4%, and the prevailing social class in Tobolsk was petty bourgeoisie, merchants and honored citizens, which altogether made up 40.6% of the population.Moreover, there were 1.2% minorities (inorodtsy) in Tobolsk due to the proximity of the Berezovskiy and Surgutskiy Okrugs, which were populated mainly by the minorities, and an additional 4.5% of people who were "excluded from the sosloviya named".The latter group included the exiles, settlers (poselentsy), retired military men (who had been considered military men before universal military service was introduced) and their family members.The share of such social class categories in Tambov was under 1%.The most "urban" sosloviya that lived in both cities were noblemen and civil servants (77.9% in Tobolskaya Guberniya and 67.1% in Tambovskaya Guberniya), honored citizens, merchants and petty bourgeoisie (74.2% and 65.3% respectively) (Table 1).The clergy in both cities made up only 25% and the share of peasants living in the cities was much less and equaled 3.2% in Tobolskaya Guberniya and 4.9% in Tambovskaya Guberniya.It is of interest that the concentration of all the sosloviya apart from peasants was higher in Tobolskaya Guberniya than in Tambovskaya.Migrations were an essential factor, which characterizes not only the urban population structure but the "sources" of urban sosloviya' formation.With certain reservations it can be said that this factor is reflected in data on urban citizens' birthplaces.Both cities and all the sosloviya except for the rural social class members were dominated by natives.In Tobolsk the share was a bit bigger than in Tambov.It is interesting to note that the majority of hereditary noblemen (48% in Tobolsk and 43% in Tambov), personal noblemen and civil servants (31% and 27% respectively) were born in other guberniyas, whereas 45% of the peasants arrived in the cities from volosts and uezds of the same guberniyas.These factors determined the high percentage of in-migrants in both cities (53% in Tambov and 51% in Tobolsk), thus demonstrating active urbanization in the regions under study.However, while Tambov faced population inflow mainly from neighbouring areas (37%), in Tobolsk the share of intra-gubernial migrants was smaller (27%).This was partially compensated for by inward flow from other guberniyas (23%).
Interesting patterns emerge when sex and age structure of social classes are compared.The age pattern of the urban sosloviya members of both sexes (the nobility, civil servants and urban "social classes") reveals an over-representation of population in the ages from 10 to 19 (to 20-25%) and a gradual decrease in the older age.
Remarkable is the fact that about 60% of the clergy were aged from 10 to 19.In Tambov this age period was dominated by male clergymen (70%) whereas in Tobolsk gender distribution of the 10-19 year clergy was more gender-balanced (51% of males and 49% of females).The increase of the privileged and urban sosloviya members in the 10-19 age group might be related to the presence of educational institutions (including seminaries) and educational migrations as a consequence.The peasant sosloviye (and Tobolsk minorities) could boast an increased share (nearly 30%) in the 20-29 age group and a growing number of males up to 65%.The latter was caused both by seasonal work and by the presence of military posts.
Part of the differences in the structure of sosloviya in both cities were related to more general urbanization processes at their respective gubernial levels.A similar trend is the growth of non-urban sosloviya in the cities under study.Note, however, that the analysis based solely on the social class category obscures many important aspects of the social realities of the Russian city in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries.In order to make this picture more comprehensive, additional information about social groups in the two cities can be derived from occupational data.

Occupational structure in Tobolsk and Tambov
Occupational structure in Tobolsk and Tambov was similar to many provincial gubernial centers.Figure 4 demonstrates the 1897 census HISCO-coded data.The implementation of HISCO classification to the 1897 census data was done on the level of big groups, i.e. by coding each occupational group.The code relates each group to a HISCO occupation.Moreover, an additional HISCO classification was employed which covered those who lived at private individuals' expense (parents, relatives, etc.) as well as people living on treasury and public institutions (those drawing a pension).It should be noted that in order to optimize the employment structure of the urban population groups of people doing administrative and clerical work were classified jointly (that is as group 2/3).On the other hand, groups "the Armed Forces" and "the Imprisoned" were shown separately.
The prevailing groups in both cities were 7/8/9 ("Production and related workers, transport equipment operators and labourers") and 5 ("Service workers").The share of the employed in each group was similar and made up 20-23%, and the share of family members of production workers was 3 times bigger than that of service workers.Such a disparity can be explained by the fact that incoming peasants were most successful at attaining positions as servants, agricultural workers and cabmen than at qualified work. 25A marked difference between the occupational structure of the cities can be seen within two groups which influenced the social "appearance" of the gubernial centers.These are the imprisoned and people receiving unearned income.There were several prisons in Tobolsk whose inmates made up 5.2% of the population.In Tambov this share was under 1%.Interesting results have been achieved when additional classification groups are compared.In Tambov the share of people living at their own expense, on treasury or as private individuals was much bigger than in Tobolsk (16.4% and 11.5% respectively).In absolute terms, there were three times people with unearned income (5,709 in Tambov and 1,679 in Tobolsk).Such data can be determined, on the one hand, by the large number of hereditary noblemen in Tambov, and, on the other hand, by the presence of medical and educational institutions whose patients and pupils were registered within the group of people living on treasury or at private individuals' expense.
Nevertheless, aggregate data reflecting sosloviye composition and specific employment of the cities as a whole do not provide for stratifying social composition of the gubernial centers.To introduce a person into a certain stratum one must analyze individual-level microdata with the means of multidimensional stratification methods.Occupation plays an important role in Russian society stratification in the early 20 th century when modernization processes caused social differentiation.Occupational stratification is interesting also due to the fact that some occupations determined the place in certain social layers.The information about an occupation, its prestige, an income, a title, a position and a place of work allows us to indentify representatives of an occupational group.In a sense, incomes are "built in" to social and occupational positions where the so called accompanying benefits are also a part.
When analyzing social and occupational structure of Tambov and Tobolsk citizens, social stratification methods were used.When choosing the criteria to arrange the populations of Russian provincial gubernial centers in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries on the basis of individuals' occupation the authors have relied on special studies carried out within certain occupational groups, and techniques earlier tested in Tambov population studies.As far as Tambov and Tobolsk are concerned, the data will cover the employed part of the urban population.
From the viewpoint of employment the scholars considered the city elite to include representatives of the upper gubernial and uezd classes, city and zemstvo administration, state counselors or actual state counselors, and big urban household owners or trade and industrial enterprise owners. 26In the gubernial centers this social group comprised also the governor, the vice-governor, state bank branch heads, gubernial governing board counselors, bishops (Siberian and Tobolsk ones) and other civil and religious authorities who due to their soslovie were considered the nobility.There were 51 of them serving in Tobolsk and 139 (with family members) in Tambov.
The city elite was also represented by merchants (62 self-employed people, with family members, in Tobolsk, and 14 in Tambov), honored citizens (6 in Tobolsk and 19 in Tambov) and petty bourgeoisie (102 people, with family members, in Tambov and 50 people in Tobolsk) who owned big trade and industrial enterprises. 27The number of peasants owning profitable trade and industrial enterprises did not exceed 10 even when one counts the minorities (inorodtsy), who had become successful in the fish industry and fur trade.The number of people in the upper social layer was small and accounted for 1.2% 28 in Tobolsk and 1.8% 29 in Tambov if the employed population is considered.The elite members slightly prevailed in Tambov.
The middle layer made up the third part of Tambov's population in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, and 25% in Tobolsk.Three strata can be singled out within the middle layer in Russian provincial centers.These are the upper middle layer, the middle layer proper and the lower middle layer.Each had its own socioeconomic features, social appearance and unique constituent elements.
Taking the occupational criteria, scholars classify the following individuals within the upper stratum: owners of middle-size and small industrial, trade and other institutions, high civil servants and professionals who lived at the expense of their "intellectual property", were in the civil or public service and gained income from the capital or small parcels of real property.The members of this stratum made up around 3% of the self-employed population of the cities under study.
The middle stratum of the middle layer was represented by the civil servants of the state industrial, transport, post and telegraph enterprises, state and public administrative institutions, schools, hospitals, churches, "professionals", military men (middle and junior officers). 30Teachers, paramedics, priests, owners of small trade and industrial institutions, cabmen-owners and other member of the middle stratum made up 8% in Tobolsk and 10% in Tambov of the employed population.The lower stratum of the middle layer was comprised of hired workers of private artisan, trade and industrial enterprises, artisans and their apprentices, cabmenworkers, servants, etc.In both cities this stratum is the biggest and covers 15-17% of the population.However one must take care when determining the number and the specific weight of this stratum as some of its members held an intermediate position (near the proletariat and half-proletariat layers) and their more exact position can be determined only when additional data are obtained. 31n spite of the importance of such a social identification factor as occupation, it cannot be complete as far as Russian society in the early 20 th century is concerned.When the occupation based stratification is carried out, it must be kept in mind that a member of one occupation could belong to different strata.This was due to income difference, position difference, social class, etc. 32 Social composition of the middle layers in the cities under study was a polysosloviye one in the early 20 th century.There were quite a lot of noblemen in the middle layers (12% in Tambov and 10.4% in Tobolsk).85% of Tambov noblemen under study were considered a part of the middle layers.In Tobolsk this number is 93%.The rest are mostly included in the elite.This contradicts the traditional point of view considering the nobility as the elite sosloviye, but reflects the all-Russian trend of the nobility's "growing poverty".Notwithstanding the state support the noblemen were losing ground (economically) and were forced away by newcomers from other sosloviya.Siberian noblemen were considered by cotemporaries and historians to have been "belonging to the class of civil servants and being an in-migrant element.There was no real nobility in Siberia". 33ost of the clergy were also a part of the middle layers.The specific weight of the clergy within the middle layers was 3% in Tambov and 1.5% in Tobolsk, whereas the share of the clergymen who were classified as being in the middle layer due to their occupation, for instance, made up 71% in Tobolsk.In general, it was noted that the specific weight of the privileged "social class" members was higher in the middle layers than their share in the cities' population.This fact can support the idea that most of the noblemen, honored citizens and clergymen sloev provincial'nogo rossijskogo goroda v načale XX v.", Social'no-èkonomičeskie Âvleniâ i Processy 12 (2014): 228-229. 31Natal'â V. Strekalova, "Sostav, stratifikaciâ i tipologiâ srednih sloev provincial'nogo gubernskogo goroda v načale ХХ v. (na materialah Tambova)", Social'no-èkonomičeskie Âvleniâ i Processy 10 (2011): 256-261. 32Strekalova, "Professiâ kak faktor": 228-229. 33Ûrij M. Gončarov, "Problemy izučeniâ social'noj stratifikacii naseleniâ gorodov Zapadnoj Sibiri vo vtoroj polovine XIX -načale XX v.", Izvestiâ Аltajskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 4 (80) (2013): 127.The approaches to social and occupational structure of Russian provincial urban centers... occupied relatively high positions and did not fall lower than the middle stratum of the middle layer.
The most numerous social class within the Tambov middle layers in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries was the petty bourgeoisie.Members of this group made up 25% of the total middle layer members whereas the petty bourgeoisie was fewer in number as compared to the peasant sosloviye, which constituted half of Tambov's population (see Table 1).Most members of the petty bourgeoisie were in the middle stratum.Tobolsk, however, had a different situation.The dominant "social class" in the middle layers were peasants, making up 48.9% of all middle layer members.The share of petty bourgeoisie was also high and equaled 31%.The urban sosloviye dominated the elite (48% of the employed elite members) and upper stratum of the middle layer (32.4% of petty bourgeoisie and 12% of peasants).Most of the petty bourgeoisie (61% of the employed in the group) and peasants (70% of the employed in the group) were a part of the lower stratum of the middle layer.Such data demonstrate the approximation of social statuses of petty bourgeois and peasants as well as the vague borders between the lower and middle strata of the middle layer in the Siberian city.
The lower layer of the urban population was represented by laborers, day workers, "home" artisans ("weaves stockings", "makes baskets"), etc.In both cities the share of the lower layer members was 60% of the employed population.The poorest Tobolsk layer was also "refilled" by prisoners, settlers (poselentsy) and exiles.The main part of the lower layer was composed of peasants (63%) and petty bourgeois (30%).In contrast to Tambov, the social dropouts also included noblemen (1.2% оf the group) and laundry workers, laborers, scrubwomen and beggars.
In general, the analysis of the sosloviye composition and occupation of different urban layers demonstrates certain differences in the social profile of the strata constituting the population of gubernial centers.Modernization processes taking place in Russian society transformed the traditional relationship between social class membership and occupation.A nobleman (who from the viewpoint of formal sosloviye membership belonged to the elite layer) could be a member of middle layers, whereas a peasant (a member of a low social class) could be placed (economically) within the city elite.One sees a decrease in the number and specific weight of some social and occupational groups and an increase in others within the city's population or its separate social strata.This proves that classformation and class-diversification were in progress in Russian society as a whole and throughout the urban population in particular.

Conclusion
Tambov and Tobolsk in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries represented the preindustrial type of cities.Their pace of economic development and their status as gubernial centers influenced demographic and occupational structure in the cities.The replacement of traditional social class structure by the occupational structure characteristic of industrial society was in progress, but its pace was slow.The cities' social structure was still dominated by traditional social groupings which were mainly embodied by representatives of traditional urban sosloviya (petty bourgeoisie and merchants) which continued to reproduce themselves.The share of noblemen, "the most urban sosloviye" from the viewpoint of the life in the city, increased.At the same time the share of non-urban social classes increased.This was determined by the influx of peasants.The high in migration reflected progressive urbanization in the regions under study.In Tambov (the Central Black Earth Region) this factor was mainly determined by intra-gubernial migrations, whereas in Tobolsk (Siberia) it was characterized by broader migratory movements.
Comparison of age and sex structures of the gubernial centers demonstrated some similar trends, such as large concentration of urban and privileged social classes in 10 to 19 years age groups, especially among the clergy.The status of a gubernial city and the presence of various institutions and military posts as well as the rural in-migration resulted in the large number of males (young ones in particular) in the gubernial centers.A specific feature of Tobolsk' social structure was a certain share of minorities and prisoners.
In spite of different geographical location of the two cities they can be classified as belonging to a single type as far as their occupational structure is concerned.Concentration of such occupational groups as civil servants, the clergy, military men, and professionals led to high shares of such groups as "Professional workers" and administrative, managerial and clerical workers.The increase in the non-productive population led to an expansion of the service sector and the share of the "Service workers" group.The relatively high share of the "Production workers, transport equipment operators and labourers" group was mainly determined by the presence of traditional occupations (trades) rather than new economic activities in the cities.
Analysis of social aspects of the two provincial gubernial centers demonstrated the contradictory character of social modernization in Russia.On the one hand, the data obtained showed the vagueness of the sosloviya and the class-formation and class-dissociation trends that were in progress in Russian society as a whole, and in its urban population in particular.On the other hand, the sosloviye was still important as the social marker of a provincial urban citizen.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The age-sex population structure of a) Tobolsk and b) Tambov

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Age and sex structures within sosloviya in Tambov and Tobolsk

Figure 4 .
Figure 4.The comparison of the employed and their family members in Tobolsk and Tambov within HISCO groups*