Russian-Bashkir Relations of the 16th — 18th Centuries in the Discussion of P. Bourdieus Concept of “Symbolic Capital”

The article reinterprets the integration of the Bashkirs into the social structure of the Russian state in the 16th — 18th centuries through Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic power. Historiography has long explained this process in terms of vassalage or protectorate, yet such approaches fail to account for the specific features of a semi-nomadic society and generate logical contradictions. The novelty of the study lies in applying the category of “symbolic capital”, which makes it possible to understand Bashkir submission as a complex of symbolic practices and privileges that legitimized Russian authority. Drawing on a wide range of sources — Bashkir genealogical legends (shежere), the Bashkir version of “Daftar-i Chingizname”, Senate documents of the 17th — 18th centuries, and records of Bashkir embassies to Moscow and St. Petersburg — the author highlights the persistence of ritual forms: the offering of gifts, shared feasts, the granting of *tarhan* charters, freedom of religion, and the right of the entire people to address the monarch directly. These practices fostered trust and elevated the Bashkirs above other peoples of the empire. The article demonstrates that symbolic power remained effective only as long as faith in the monarch as the legitimate successor of the Chinggisid tradition endured. Peter I’s attempt to replace voluntary agreements with the symbolism of military subjugation undermined trust and provoked uprisings. The subsequent return to the 16th-century model revealed that in traditional societies symbolic capital — grounded in recognition and belief rather than economic calculation — played a decisive role in sustaining power.Key words: symbolic capital, Bashkirs, integration, privileges, access to supreme power, citizenship.