This important, timely book fills a void. While there have been books on Russian nationalism, and Russian conservatives as individuals, there has not been an attempt to define and describe Russian conservatism as a coherent ideology, consistent over time. The main reason being, Russian conservatism is neither exactly coherent nor consistent over time. Robinson does not conceal this, and much of the text articulates the contradictions among the varied representatives of conservatism, in their historical contexts from the reign of Alexander I to the present day. “On the one hand…on the other hand” is a recurrent formula.

Despite the contradictions, Robinson offers a thorough, sympathetic survey and argues a few key points: Russian conservatism is “deeply dissatisfied with the status quo,” and “deeply interested in change” (9). Conservatism is typically “defined by what it is against,” rather than for (10). And conservatism relies on the “organic principle” or “worldview,” which is paradoxically both particularistic and universal: each society should follow its own path of development, but the social order is God-given and based on eternal values. Robinson elaborates this organic worldview: change should be slow and gradual; social development (“progress”) follows a life-cycle that includes death; what is good for one society is not necessarily good for others; and the needs of the whole outweigh that of the parts, so “every individual should be content with his or her own place in the system” (11). The obvious conclusion that Robinson does not quite draw, is that despite conservatives’ deep dissatisfaction with it, the status quo must still be defended in most cases, if only as the starting point for organic (slow, gradual) change. Robinson asserts, “The organic principle provides the thread that ties conservatism together and solidifies it from merely an attitude or worldview into a fully developed ideology” (9). The use of “thread” is indicative, and the reader may question whether this thread is strong enough to bear the weight of Robinson's argument, and whether there are not other threads running through conservatism, such as ressentiment. Alternately, Russian conservatism is a quilt of irregular pieces, highlighting the stitching needed to hold them together.

The book is well organized. In the introduction, Robinson identifies three strands of Russian conservatism: cultural (including religious and national influences), political (primarily, but not exclusively, concerned with autocracy), and social-economic (ranging from serfdom to industrialization to central planning and beyond), each elaborated beyond tidy summary here. He then analyzes the three categories in each of ten chapters, covering Alexander I, Nicholas I and Official Nationality, the Slavophiles, Alexander II and the Great Reforms, Alexander III and counter-reform, the years 1905 to 1917, Russian émigrés (Ivan Il΄in comes off favorably), the Stalin era (perfunctory), the late-Soviet era, and post-Soviet Russia. From each era, prominent conservatives (and some lesser-knowns) provide examples of cultural, political, and social-economic conservatism, to fill each box in the grid. It is refreshing to see a book so clearly follow an outline, but not everything fits a box, and not all is especially organic. For instance, in the Great Reforms era, Mikhail Katkov is discussed in several contexts, but not his support for education reform based on ancient languages (and banning most Russian literature). There was nothing organic in this dramatic reaction to the perceived harmful influences of vocational and scientific instruction. Likewise, Robinson mentions too matter-of-factly Nikolai Danilevskii's plans for a federation of Slavic states with its capital in Istanbul (rechristened Tsargrad), to counterbalance the power of western Europe. This plan for a Pan-Slavic utopia was hardly organic, but offered a rejoinder to the Europe taking shape under Otto von Bismarck's hand. Danilevskii often used the organic principle metaphorically, but his ideas did not necessarily follow it. In most chapters, the reader will find examples of conservative thought to read less charitably than Robinson seems to.

I would still highly recommend this book for libraries, graduate seminars, and early career researchers just starting in this field. The bibliography offers a valuable guide, and the frequent block quotes in the body offer samples of these authors’ own words. The book is an insightful primer, introducing readers to conservatism as a part of the ideological landscape and national conversation across two centuries in roughly 200 pages, a good starting point for further investigation.