Duelling, the Russian Cultural Imagination, and Masculinity in Crisis

by Amanda DiGioia

This book, written from a feminist perspective, uses the focus of duelling to discuss the nature of masculinity in Russia. It traces the development of duelling and masculinity historically from the time of Peter the Great onwards, considers how duelling and masculinity have been represented in both literature and film and assesses the high emphasis given in Soviet times to gender equality, arguing that this was a failed experiment that ran counter to Russian tradition. It examines how duelling continues to be a feature of life in contemporary Russia and relates the situation in Russia to wider scholarship on the nature of masculinity more generally. Overall, the book contends that Russia’s valuing of a strong, militaristic form of masculinity is a major problem.

222 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 12, 2020

Reviews

[Hunter · Rating 1 out of 5]

Most bluntly, it is unclear to me why this book was even written. It shows a decided lack of actual engagement with existing literature on dueling, and even dueling in Russia, despite the focus of the book. This is unfortunate, as there aren't many academic works which focus on that topic, but this new entry does absolutely nothing whatsoever to build off the work of Reyfman.

What engagement it does have with Reyfman seems to be based almost entirely off of two reviews, which seem to be accepted rather uncritically, and without any of the author's own actual archival work. This is most frustrating given the number of time where DiGioia seems to choose to agree or disagree with Reyfman based on whether it supports her own conclusions, but without any explanation of why she is willing to toss some but not others, or notice that the approach taken creates severe contradictions.

Aside specifically from the terrible handling of Reyfman, the book as a whole had me swinging back and forth between bafflement at the conclusions being reached at certain points, which were very ill-supported, and wry amusement at how simply mundane and uninteresting other conclusions were. Where I found the analysis to be wrong, it was quite wrong; where it was right, it was such basis analysis as to be pointless. It is very much a book written around a conclusion with evidence chosen as necessary, rather than quality research that led to reaching one.

I have more gripes beyond, but that encapsulates the core issues. If you are interested in the history of the duel in Russia, the one thing I certainly can agree with is the fact that more research and writing needs to be done on the topic, but until then, Reyfman is far more worth your time than this ever would be.