P. Pyryuchev.
STATISTICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Preface.
The essays presented to the reader have, in part, never before been published; in part, they are reprints of articles that appeared in various periodicals prior to the war. The question addressed in these essays—namely, the significance and role of national movements, and the relationship between the national and the international—naturally elicits a heightened interest today. Most often—and perhaps most frequently—the chief shortcoming of discussions on this topic is the absence of a historical perspective and a lack of concrete analysis. It is all too common for writers to peddle all manner of contraband under the banner of vague generalities. We therefore believe that a modest dose of statistical analysis will prove highly indispensable. In our view, it is not without value to compare what we had to say before the war with the lessons it has since taught us. The essays are united by a consistent theoretical framework and a shared point of view, dating back to 1917. Author.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF NATIONAL MOVEMENTS.
Facts are stubborn things, as the English proverb has it. This proverb is especially apt when one observes how certain writers, like nightingales in full song, extol the greatness of the “principle of nationality” in its various meanings and interrelations—applying this “principle,” for the most part, with about the same skill and appropriateness as the famous hero in the folk tale who exclaims, “You’ll never carry it all away!” upon seeing a funeral procession pass by.
Precise facts, indisputable facts—these are precisely what such writers find most intolerable, and precisely what they most urgently need to avoid. But how does one gather facts? How does one establish their connections and mutual dependencies? In the realm of social phenomena, there is no more widespread—or more fundamentally flawed—method than the selective picking out of isolated facts, the mere playing with examples. To assemble examples is hardly a laborious task; yet the significance of such examples is either nonexistent or, at best, purely negative—since what truly matters is the historically specific context of each individual case. Facts, taken in their totality, in their interconnected web, are not only “stubborn” but also undeniably conclusive. Facts, however, if treated in isolation, severed from their proper context, if fragmented and arbitrary, become nothing more than toys—or something even worse. For instance, when a writer who once took himself seriously, and who still hopes to be regarded as such, seizes upon the fact of the Mongol Yoke and presents it as an example to illuminate certain events in twentieth-century Europe, can this be dismissed as mere playfulness, or is it more accurate to label it political charlatanism? The Mongol Yoke is a historical fact, undoubtedly linked to the broader question of national identity—as, likewise, a series of facts in twentieth-century Europe are equally undeniably tied to this very question. Yet few people—those whom the French call “national clowns”—are capable of claiming seriousness while wielding the “fact” of the Mongol Yoke as a tool to illustrate what was unfolding in Europe during the twentieth century. From this we draw the following conclusion:
We must endeavor to establish a foundation of authentic, incontrovertible facts—a foundation upon which we can rely, a foundation against which any of those “general” or “exemplary” arguments, so recklessly abused in certain countries today, can be measured. For this foundation to be truly solid, it is essential not to focus on isolated facts alone, but rather to embrace the entire body of facts relevant to the issue at hand, without exception or omission—and otherwise, inevitably, the suspicion will arise—not entirely unjustified—that the facts have been chosen or selected arbitrarily, that instead of objectively revealing the intricate web of interrelationships among historical phenomena, what is being offered is merely a “subjective” concoction, perhaps even a shady attempt to justify some dubious undertaking. After all, this happens… far more often than one might think.

With these considerations in mind, we decided to begin with statistics—fully aware, of course, of the deep-seated antipathy that statistics often evoke among readers who prefer “lowly truths” to the “glorifying delusions” that some seek to propagate, and among certain writers who delight in smuggling, under the banner of “general” discourse on internationalism, cosmopolitanism, nationalism, patriotism, and the like, a kind of political contraband.
Chapter 1.
A BIT OF STATISTICS.
1.
To survey the full range of data pertaining to national movements, one must take into account the entire population of the earth. Two criteria must be established as precisely as possible and traced as thoroughly as possible: first, the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity in the national composition of individual states; second, the distinction between states—or state-like entities, where doubts may arise as to whether one can properly speak of a “state”—and those that are politically independent from others, versus those that remain politically dependent.
Let us turn to the most recent data published in 1916, drawing upon two primary sources: one German, Otto Hübner’s “Geographical-Statistical Tables,” and one English, The Statesman’s Year Book. We shall take the former as our foundational source, since it offers a far more comprehensive treatment of the questions that concern us; we will use the latter primarily for verification and for certain, mostly minor, corrections.
Let us begin our survey with those states that are politically independent and, in terms of national composition, the most “pure”—that is, those lying to the west of Russia and Austria. At the forefront of this group immediately emerges the constellation of Western European states—those situated to the west of Russia and Austria.
Here we encounter just seventeen states—but of these, five, though remarkably homogeneous in terms of national composition, are little more than curiosities, given their minuscule size. These are Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Andorra, whose combined populations total a mere 310,000 people. Undoubtedly, it would be far more appropriate to include…