Apprenticeships and formal business schooling in late imperial Russia (1880-1917): A gendered perspective

Peshko, Valeriia Article Apprenticeships and formal business schooling in late imperial Russia (1880-1917): A gendered perspective Essays in Economic & Business History (EEBH) Provided in Cooperation with: Economic and Business History Society (EBHS) Suggested Citation: Peshko, Valeriia (2024) : Apprenticeships and formal business schooling in late imperial Russia (1880-1917): A gendered perspective, Essays in Economic & Business History (EEBH), ISSN 2376-9459, Economic and Business History Society (EBHS), Rockford, MI, Vol. 42, Iss. 1, pp. 59-89 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/330504 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Copyright © 2024, The Economic and Business History Society. This is an open access journal. Users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. ISSN 2376-9459 (online) LCC 79-91616 HC12.E2 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 59 Essays in Economic & Business History 2024, 42 (1): 59-89 Published December 21, 2024 Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia (1880-1917): A Gendered Perspective Valeria Peshko, University of Helsinki, valeriia[email protected] Abstract Commercial education emerged when women’s rights were limited and single-gender schools dominated. Inevitably this system created differences in educational attainment and contributed to unequal gender roles in business organizations. This article examines an alternative trajectory in the rise of business education by focusing on a developing country, where women had economic rights—prerevolutionary Russia. It finds that in the traditional merchant apprenticeship system women were typically family members, so ownership was more important for their authority than expertise. In commercial schools, men and women received similar training, but different assumptions about female education and professional life made it much harder for women to claim authority based on their qualifications. JEL Classifications: N33, I21, J16. Key Words: business education, gender, specialized knowledge, authority, business ownership, clerical work. Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 60 Introduction Despite ample evidence that managerial and lower white-collar work are segregated by gender (for example, Gregory Anderson 1989; Margery Davies 1993; Angel Kwolek-Folland 1994; Deborah Simonton 1998) and the persistence of masculine tropes in business discourse (Eleanor Hamilton 2013; Frida Jernberg, Anna Lindbäck, and Annie Roos 2020; Christian Johnsen and Bent Sørensen 2017), only a few studies have interrogated the emergence and practice of business education from a gendered perspective (Allison Elias 2020; Eirinn Larsen 2011; Kristin Williams and Albert Mills 2019). The fact that the emergence of formal business schooling in the nineteenth century occurred when single-gender schooling was still dominant in Europe has often been overlooked in historical studies. 1 However, this system inevitably created differences in educational attainment between men and women, which contributed to unequal gender roles in in business organizations. The emergence of these gender inequalities in business pre-dates the nineteenth century. In the majority of European cities women were barred from entering apprenticeships and guilds, although some still had access to vocational training through their family connections and schools (Sheilagh Ogilvie 2003, 80-99, 2019 ch. 5). In France from the 1650s, women had access to vocational training in parish schools and special professional schools— much earlier than formal schooling reached boys (Clare Crowston 2008, 30-34). However, these opportunities extended only to trades and occupations considered appropriate for their class and gender, such as sewing and needlework. Training within family firms for centuries represented the major way both men and women developed appropriate business skills, but the institutionalization of education in the nineteenth century reduced the significance of this channel. As Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall remarked in their seminal study on family firms in early-nineteenth century Britain, lack of specialized knowledge made it more difficult for women to command authority on the shop floor, as the scale of manufacturing and complexity of market operations increased (Davidoff and Hall 1987, 304). Considering other factors restricting women’s economic agency such as coverture or limitations on practicing certain trades, it is not surprising that business training available to women often prepared them only for low-level clerical jobs. Even today when women are much more represented among business school students, researchers observe significant disparities in academic achievement attributed to gender stereotypes (Aradnha Krishna and Yeşim Orhun 2022). But how would an alternative history of the business school look like, if it developed in a society with less economic development but more rights for women? This case study of the development of commercial education in Imperial Russia offers an opportunity to examine this question. Whereas in Europe trained women entered clerical positions in enterprises, where top executive positions were dominated by men, in Russia this division was less strong due to the unique position of women in Russian law. Although the patriarchal family structure was enshrined in Russian civil law, economic activities of women had almost no limitations even after marriage. Women had full property rights and were able to establish or inherit businesses. As a result, Russia had a relatively high rate of female business ownership. Being a late-industrializing country, the Russian Empire relied on technology and expertise developed earlier elsewhere. So, when the Ministry of Finance started to create a commercial school system in the 1890s, it looked to existing European 1 The rise of formal business schooling in the late nineteenth century and its spread throughout the twentieth was primarily viewed in the context of changing corporate structures, industrialization, and crystallization of management science as a distinct academic discipline (Alfred Chandler 1971; Robert Locke 1984; Malcolm Warner 1987). Meanwhile, formation of national business school models in the US, Japan and Europe became the main framework for histories of business and management education (Lars Engwall, Matthias Kipping, and Behlül Üsdiken 2016; Engwall and Vera Zamagni 1998; Susanna Fellman 2001; Andreas Kaplan 2018; Locke 1984). Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 61 models, in particular the German one. As in Western Europe, the Russian educational system was largely single-gender with girls’ schools having shorter and less challenging programs. Russian officials were generally skeptical about granting women full access to university-level training, making concessions under pressure from the feminist movement and rolling them back in times of political instability. However, the special status of commercial schools allowed the establishment of more equal programs at the secondary level and even inclusion of women in higher education. These circumstances prompt new questions about gender and business knowledge. What access to business knowledge and training did women have before the emergence of a formal commercial school system? How was their competence perceived and valued? How did the implementation of commercial schools impact the construction of masculinities and femininities in business? I argue that while under the apprenticeship system women were not entirely excluded from accessing specialized knowledge, commercial schools significantly broadened that access, creating a fairly equal footing between men and women. However, the premises under which female education and professional life were conceived were markedly different, making it much harder for women to claim positions of authority based on their education and expertise. Although Russian scholarship has produced considerable research on merchant apprenticeship practices (Svetlana Filatova 2016; I Uriĭ Goncharov 2004; Natalʹi a Koreeva 2018), the development of commercial education (Aleksandr Bessolitsyn 2012, 2014; Mikhail Bri ant sev 1999; 2000; I Uriĭ Maslov 2001; Oksana Vakhromeeva 2009) and women’s professional education (Elena Kosetchenkova 2007), these issues were treated separately. Another growing body of literature on female entrepreneurship has revealed the significant presence of businesswomen and presented evidence of gender segmentation of the market (see, for example, Tanya Byker and Amanda Gregg 2019; Filatova 2016; Johannes Raschka 2006; Galina Ulianova 2009, 2022a, 2022b; see also the overview of this literature in Konstantin Abdrakhmanov 2017). How and why notions of gender were shaping the markets in this way remain underexplored. This article focuses on links between business, gender and class, but I acknowledge that these were far from the only structuring factors in the Russian Empire, with regional differences, ethnic and religious distinctions being the most prominent. This complexity motivates me to narrow the scope of investigation to the two largest cities— Saint Petersburg, the capital at the time, and Moscow; however, references to Ukrainian and Baltic examples are made for additional context. The article is divided into five main sections. Following this introduction, the next section discusses theoretical perspectives on the role of specialized knowledge and gender in business organizations and introduces my methodological approach and sources. Following this, I set the stage for the main argument by expanding on the character of Russian business organization and different modes of training, namely apprenticeship and formal schools. Finally, my empirical analysis is presented, followed by the concluding discussion. Specialized Knowledge and Gender Ever since Alfred Chandler’s influential research on the rise of the modern corporation, business enterprise has been understood as an organization with a fixed hierarchy where the distribution of tasks requires its members to possess (or develop) specialist knowledge (Chandler 1971). As theorized by Max Weber and later by Heinz Hartmann, specialist knowledge underpins the authority of managers, justifying their decisions and commands to their subordinates (Hartmann 1959a, 6, 1959b, 436-441; Weber 2019). In this respect institutions and practices that supply this knowledge, such as apprenticeships and business schools, play a crucial role in the making of the manager. There is a dynamic relationship between educational institutions and businesses: schools supply qualified workers, while Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 62 businesses directly and indirectly inform schools about the kind of workers they need. In other words, educational institutions reproduce and reinforce the norms and practices of business organizations. Although the importance of gender for organization and managerial authority is hard to overstate (Joan Acker 1990; Susan Halford, Mike Savage, and Anne Witz 1997), its role in management education remains underexplored (Elias 2020, 126). Previous research largely treated the appearance of gendered commercial education as a feature of the larger process of change in the formulation of masculine and feminine occupations (Gladys Carnaffan 1989; Kwolek-Folland 1994). While concurring with this view, I follow Larsen’s approach to studying the history of business education “not simply as a supporting part of industrialization and bureaucratization of corporate life at the fin de siècle, but more as a socio-cultural construct that surfaced in response to these very same processes” (Larsen 2011, 26). Thus, the development of commercial education is interesting both as a channel for ideas on masculine and feminine work but also as a ground where these notions were conceptualized, (re)formulated and challenged. Through a dynamic relationship between educational institutions and businesses, specialized knowledge and skills themselves are gendered based on the characteristic of the knowledge and its host. Not only does their gendered categorization derive from perception of its properties as more appropriate for men or women (for example, accounting is complex and thus masculine, typing is easy and feminine), but also the skill itself gains or loses value based on who possesses it. My analysis relies on a combination of close and distant reading methods. My close reading approach is informed by examination of the historical construction of masculinities and femininities through the study of discourses (Joan Scott 1988). To reconstruct the discourse surrounding business education I rely on texts intended for the public eye, which can be divided into several groups: 1) materials directly related to commercial schools, such as school charters and reports produced by schools, voluntary organizations and alumni associations; 2) discussions among experts and professional educators, which appeared in professional conference materials, books and essays; 3) journalistic accounts related to commercial education and white-collar work and women’s work more generally as well as letters from the general public on these topics, which were published in newspapers; 4) memoirs and fictional accounts from observers intimately familiar with the business community. To contextualize my findings, I use distant reading of statistical sources such as urban censuses and data on commercial schools. Background Businessowners and their Employees Trade legislation in the Russian Empire was rather liberal in terms of general access to commercial activity. Over the course of the nineteenth and into the early twentieth century, despite changes in taxation, the main principle remained the same: to conduct business, one had to purchase a fixed-term license, the price of which was determined by the scale and type of operation. In general, both men and women had the right to purchase these licenses. Even when married, most lawyers of the time agreed, they had no limitations on commercial activity (Nikita Bilenko 2018, 419). 2 2 The only contentious issue was the interpretation of the issue of the ability of women to give bills of exchange (veksel’)—a crucial financial instrument at the time. According to the law, women, whether married or not, could not give nor transfer bills of exchange without their husband’s or parents’ permission, “unless they trade in their own name” (Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoĭ Imperii. Sobranie II. Vol. VII 1832 № 5462, 407). Despite this latter clause some contemporaries argued that married women still needed their husband’s permission to give bills of exchange and had limited trading Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 63 Moreover, in the Russian legal tradition women’s property was separated much earlier than in other European countries. As early as the seventeenth century, the property of husbands and wives was distinguished by law and custom (Vakhromeeva 2008, 82-83). In the eighteenth century noble women’s property rights were clarified and extended, and women of all social classes acquired the same protections after the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861 (Michelle Marrese 2002, 46-70, 241; see also William Wagner 1994). White-collar employees in industry and commerce were also required to purchase licenses and sign employment contracts. In this case limitations for married women were minimal: the husband could demand termination of the contract, but lack of his permission did not nullify it (Vakhromeeva 2008, 87). The most common term to describe these workers in official documents and everyday usage—prikazchik for men, prikazchit sa for women—had a fairly broad meaning (see Alexander Kaplunovskiy 2006). Briefly, a prikazchik was an assistant to a businessowner, to whom some managerial and clerical tasks were delegated. The degree of responsibility of prikazchiki varied, but usually involved tending to customers in the shop, bookkeeping and business correspondence, which makes them largely equivalent to clerks. In the early twentieth century the term began to be associated more strongly with retail trade, while office work was referred to in more specific occupational terms, for example, office clerk (kontorshchik/kontorshchit sa), bookkeeper or cashier. The period from the 1850s to the early twentieth century was marked by mass entry of women into white-collar occupations, and the Russian Empire followed this trend, albeit with some delay. By the end of the 1900s women comprised 38.9 percent of commercial workers in France, 37.6 percent in the US, 30.5 percent in Germany and 17.5 percent in Britain (Kwolek-Folland 1994, 4; Simonton 1998, 236). Meanwhile, in Saint Petersburg the rate of women’s participation in these jobs demonstrated a steady growth from 4.6 percent in 1881 to 21.1 percent in 1910; in Moscow it rose from 9.1 percent to 13.2 percent (see Table 1). In comparison to the overall female employment, the trade, services and transport sector, although being far from the largest, demonstrated dramatic growth in both cities (Anastasiya Shinova 2020). These female employment rates could be considered even rather high in comparison to Western counterparts, considering the gender literacy gap. Whereas in England and Wales by 1913 illiteracy rates for both men and women were estimated to be around 1 percent (R.S. Schofield 1973, 443), in Saint Petersburg around the same time only 65 percent of women older than sixteen were literate, in contrast to 88 percent of men. 3 Despite the considerable rise of women’s share in commercial white-collar occupations since the 1880s, the share of female businessowners remained stable in the capital and increased only moderately in Moscow (see Table 2). The Moscow population census of 1912 also provides evidence of the gender balance in various commercial occupations (see Table 3). The highest number of women in absolute terms and second highest as share of total were proprietors, whereas the number of employed women was much lower, but divisions between different kinds of white-collar work are evident. Women’s share was the highest among family members employed in clerical positions (almost 40 percent), but the overall number of workers in this category was quite small. Women comprised around 7 percent of directors and prikazchik-clerks, while in more specialized occupations such as accounting and office work their share is closer to 20 percent. Moscow’s example serves as a good illustration of Simonton’s critique of describing women’s participation in white-collar work as “feminization”, capacity as a result (Bilenko 2018, 419). Others, meanwhile, believed that in trade marital status played no role (see, for example, Alekseĭ Guli aev 1912, 13-14). 3 My calculations are based on the 1910 Saint Petersburg population census (Petrograd po perepisi naselenii a 15 dekabri a 1910 goda. Ch. 1. Chislennostʹ i sostav naselenii a po polu, vozrastu, gramotnosti, stepeni obrazovanii a, mestu rozhdenii a, vremeni poselenii a v Petrograde, semeĭnomu sostoi anii u, veroispovedanii u, soslovii u i rodnomu i azyku n.d., 5 table II). Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 64 which implies substitution of male by female workers. In the developing tertiary sector a lot of the jobs were new, and the division of labor between men and women was not clear yet (Simonton 1998, 235). In Moscow the “old work” of the prikazchik remained male-dominated, while women had more access to “newer” white-collar occupations that required formal training, like bookkeeping. Table 1 White-collar commercial workers in Saint Petersburg and Moscow, 1880s-1910s City Year Men Women Women, percentage of total (%) Saint Petersburg 1881 8,752 427 4.65 1890 9,352 1,001 9.67 1900 21,517 4,164 16.21 1910 28,727 7,697 21.13 Moscow 1882 18,199 1,823 9.10 1902 61,723 8,703 12.36 1912 84,612 12,870 13.20 Note: Numbers for white-collar commercial workers in Saint Petersburg represent administrat sii a (administration) category. Numbers for white-collar commercial workers in Moscow represent prikazchiki in 1882; a sum of sluzhashchie fabrik i zavodov (white-collar workers in factories), sluzhashchie prochikh vidov promyshlennosti (white-collar workers in other enterprises), sluzhashchie transportnykh predprii atiĭ (white-collar workers in transportation) sluzhashchie doтovladenii a i traktirnogo promysla (employees of landlords and innkeepers), sluzhashchie torgovykh zavedeniĭ i kreditnykh uchrezhdeniĭ (white-collar workers in commerce and banking) and pomogai ushchie v promysle chleny sem’i (family members assisting with business) in 1902; and a sum of sluzhashchie torgovopromyshlennykh predprii atiĭ and prikazchiki i rabochie v torgovle among family members aiding with business in 1912. Sources: Saint Petersburg: Author’s calculations based on population census aggregated statistics for 1881 (S.-Peterburg po perepisi 15-go dekabri a 1881 goda. T. 1: Naselenie 1884, 308 table I), 1890 (S.-Peterburg po perepisi 15 dekabri a 1890 goda. Ch. 1. Naselenie. Vyp. 2 : Raspredelenie naselenii a po zani atii am 1892, 50 table IV), 1900 (S.-Peterburg po perepisi 15 dekabri a 1900 goda. Naselenie. Vyp. 2. Raspredelenie naselenii a po zani atii am 1903, 88 table II-A), 1910 (Petrograd po perepisi naselenii a 15 dekabri a 1910 goda. Ch. 2. Raspredelenie naselenii a po gruppam zani atiĭ n.d., 23 table I). Moscow: Author’s calculations based on population census aggregated statistics for 1882 (1885, 68 table XI), 1902 (Perepisʹ Moskvy 1902 goda. Ch. 1 : Naselenie. Vyp. 2 Naselenie g. Moskvy (bez prigorodov) po zani atii am, veroispovedanii u i rodnomu i azyku. Bezrabotnye i uvechnye 1906, 2-5 table I), 1912 (Statisticheskiĭ ezhegodnik goroda Moskvy i Moskovskoĭ gubernii. Statisticheskie dannye po gorodu Moskve za 1914-1925 g.g 1927, 69 table 14). Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 65 Table 2 Proprietors with employees in Saint Petersburg and Moscow, 1880s-1910s City Year Men Women Women, percentage of total (%) Saint Petersburg 1881 21,296 7,148 25.13 1890 22,506 9,268 29.17 1900 27,086 11,694 30.15 1910 27,031 10,934 28.80 Moscow 1882 22,133 6,533 22.79 1902 28,355 9,653 25.40 1912 37,647 13,371 26.21 Note: Numbers for proprietors with employees in Saint Petersburg are given for the category of khozi aeva (proprietors). Numbers for proprietors in Moscow represent khozi aeva s naemnymi rabochimi (proprietors with employees) in 1882 and a sum of khozi aeva s naemnymi rabochimi and khozi aeva, rabotai ushchie tol’ko pri pomoshchi chlenov sem’i (proprietors, who employ only family members) in 1902 and 1912. Sources: Saint Petersburg: Author’s calculations based on population census aggregated statistics for 1881 (S.-Peterburg po perepisi 15-go dekabri a 1881 goda. T. 1: Naselenie 1884, 308 table I), 1890 (S.-Peterburg po perepisi 15 dekabri a 1890 goda. Ch. 1. Naselenie. Vyp. 2 : Raspredelenie naselenii a po zani atii am 1892, 50 table IV), 1900 (S.-Peterburg po perepisi 15 dekabri a 1900 goda. Naselenie. Vyp. 2. Raspredelenie naselenii a po zani atii am 1903, 86 table II-A), 1910 (Petrograd po perepisi naselenii a 15 dekabri a 1910 goda. Ch. 2. Raspredelenie naselenii a po gruppam zani atiĭ n.d., 22 table I). Moscow: Author’s calculations based on population census aggregated statistics for 1882 (Perepisʹ Moskvy 1882 goda. Naselenie i zani atii a 1885, 60 table IX), 1902 (Perepisʹ Moskvy 1902 goda. Ch. 1 : Naselenie. Vyp. 2 Naselenie g. Moskvy (bez prigorodov) po zani atii am, veroispovedanii u i rodnomu i azyku. Bezrabotnye i uvechnye 1906, 3-5 table I), 1912 (Statisticheskiĭ ezhegodnik goroda Moskvy i Moskovskoĭ gubernii. Statisticheskie dannye po gorodu Moskve za 1914-1925 g.g 1927, 68 table 14). Table 3 Proprietors and white-collar occupations in Moscow, 1912 Occupation Men Women Women, percentage of total (%) Proprietors with employees 37,647 13,371 26.21 Employed family members (prikazchiki and other commercial employees) 3,071 2,036 39.87 Bookkeepers, cashiers 4,376 1,268 22.47 Directors 3,516 256 6.79 Clerks / Retail clerks (prikazchiki) 31,478 2,407 7.10 Office clerks (kontorshchiki, etc.) 16,074 3,130 16.30 Agents, brokers etc. 1,954 28 1.41 Employed artisans 4,442 7 0.16 Sources: Moscow 1912 population census results (Statisticheskiĭ ezhegodnik goroda Moskvy i Moskovskoĭ gubernii. Statisticheskie dannye po gorodu Moskve za 1914-1925 g.g 1927, 6869 table 14). Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 66 Apprenticeships and Formal Commercial Education Apprenticeship did not have formal ties to a merchant guild structure, but was still perceived as a step toward acquiring merchant status. As mentioned above, entering the merchant estate in the nineteenth century required the purchase of a license, irrespective of training. At the age of sixteen (from 1863, seventeen) apprentices were legally considered to be secondlevel clerks, and thus required a special license (Kaplunovskiy 2006, 383). Hiring an apprentice also required a contract with specified terms and duration of service, but most apprenticeships were probably arranged informally (Otkhozhie promysly 1907, 9; see examples of contracts in Koreeva 2018, 121). They were not limited to boys, but urban censuses suggest that the number of girls undergoing a trade apprenticeship was extremely small (see Tables 4 and 5). Apprenticeships usually began at the age of fifteen or sixteen and lasted from two to six years, but apprentices as young as twelve were not uncommon. Underage apprentices were the most vulnerable category of workers: the law limited the value of goods an underage apprentice could oversee (and thus be liable for) to thirty rubles, but there were no restrictions on working hours or corporal punishment (Grigoriĭ Bertgoldt 1900, XXVIII). 4 Merchants often apprenticed their own sons, but also accepted children of other merchants or members of lower estates. After finishing their service apprentices could become clerks in the same firm or seek employment elsewhere. Young men who worked in their family business were expected to assume the leadership position once the leader of the firm passed away or stepped down. Many members of Moscow merchant elites worked as apprentices and clerks before becoming full owners (Ulianova 2000, 447). However, clerks from a nonmerchant background aspired to become partners in the firm of their boss or to establish their own business. 5 According to contemporary observers, for many urban residents and peasants, securing merchant apprenticeships for their children meant giving them a chance at improving their fortunes (see, for example, A. Kolychev 1905, 164). Even so, especially toward the end of the nineteenth century, many observers spoke about the inefficiencies of apprenticeships as a means of training. They argued that apprentices were mostly engaged in menial tasks such as cleaning and running errands, leaving no time for any meaningful training (see, for example, Kolychev 1905, 165; Otkhozhie promysly 1907, 9). The low educational quality of apprenticeships and incompetence of apprenticed clerks became one of the main arguments for establishment of formal commercial schools (Mikhail Kechedzhi-Shapovalov 1911, 258). The first wave of formal commercial schools (largely equivalent to secondary schools) occurred in Europe in the second half of the eighteenth century (Hans Bödeker 2012; Lúcia Lima Rodrigues, Russell Craig, and Delfina Gomes 2007), and the Russian Empire was not an exception. Its first formal institution oriented to providing commerce-specific knowledge was founded as early as 1772 in Moscow by Ivan Betskoĭ, Catherine II’s adviser on education, and prominent industrialist Prokofiĭ Demidov (Maslov 2001, 45-46). This school was supposed to inspire merchants across the Empire to open similar institutions (Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoĭ Imperii. Sobranie I. Vol. XIX 1830 № 13916, 673), but its effect was rather modest. By the end of the nineteenth century only about ten schools were founded (Bessolitsyn 2012, 16; see also Bri ant sev 2000, 272-288), and only under Witte’s leadership (see below) did schools of commerce become more widespread. 4 Not surprisingly, in the 1900s, when tensions between employers and workers were high, professional white-collar unions demanded a ban on the employment of children younger than sixteen and put a six-hour workday limit on employees under eighteen (Belin 1906, 30). 5 Detailed consideration of how a clerk could become a merchant can be found in Ksenofont Polevoĭ’s advice book (1847, 274-282; see also Otkhozhie promysly 1907, 10; Abram Gudvan 1925, 122-123). Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 73 men with lower commercial education … than for those with specialist degrees” (Buryshkin 1990, 93). Although Buryshkin concluded that the highest commercial education had very limited impact on the business world, his remark about the success of middle-level candidates can be regarded as a testimony of the appreciation for basic commercial training among businessowners. Attempts to elevate the status of business education conformed with a larger agenda of restoring the reputation of the commercial classes in society in general. In her research on retail culture in late Imperial Russia, Marjorie Hilton observed a conceptual shift instigated by activist merchants and allied journalists, who formulated an ideal of modernized commerce run by refined businessmen—kommersanty (Hilton 2012, 110-115). A loan word from French, it signaled an orientation toward Western norms and practices. Kommersanty was often contrasted with Russian words for merchants (kupt sy, kupechestvo), which were associated with the old ways of doing business, where cheating, rudeness and authoritarianism were supposedly commonplace. Discourse on commercial education contributed to that shift. The need for some level of specialized training was frequently mentioned by journalists and education experts in the early twentieth century. As one critic in the daily Golos Moskvy noted: Some members of merchantry [kupechestvo] and the press consider ... commercial education to be a luxury, unjustified by the circumstances of our trade and industry; however, they forget that an executive of large enterprise should be familiar with issues of global significance … [they forget that] contemporary merchant [kommersant] needs the knowledge that neither city schools, nor apprenticeship can provide. 15 Similarly, another critic argued that special training in commerce had become indispensable to success in business, as world trade became more globalized and commerce operations more complex. To him, the traditional learning through practice was obsolete: “the merchant (kommersant) of the future will no longer learn the necessary skills at the cashier’s or clerk’s desk, nor at the counter of his own trade house” (Kechedzhi-Shapovalov 1905, 4). Considering the accessibility of commercial education, this discourse may seem gender neutral. A closer look at discussions around commercial education and its application reveals a significant gendered difference. Undoubtedly, educated white-collar specialists were more immediate products of the commercial school system than entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, discursively commercial education for boys held a similar promise of elevation to positions of authority as trade apprenticeship. One commentator remarked: “when [boys] move from the countryside into the city to be apprenticed, under favorable circumstances they could rise [above the crowd] and become independent [business] owners. Attending a trade school is one of these circumstances”. 16 An occupational survey conducted by a male commercial school alumni organization in 1913 reveals that around 20 percent of respondents oversaw their own businesses, not that far behind civil service and commercial white-collar work, which comprised around 30 percent each (see Table 6). Even in the group that graduated less than a decade earlier, the share of businessowners was as high as 16 percent. This gives reason to believe that commercial schools were not only intended for but indeed produced professional businessmen, the kommersant. 15 G. 1908. “Torgovye muzei.” [“Trade Museums.”] Golos Moskvy, March 21. 16 Ki unt sel’ V. 1910. “Razvitie nashego kommercheskogo obrazovanii a.” [“Development of Our Commercial Education.”] Promyshlennost’ i Torgovli a, August 15. Emphasis in the original. Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 74 Table 6 Occupations of Saint Petersburg Imperial Commercial School graduates in 1913 Occupational group Total graduates since 1850 Sector Share (%) Graduated since 1903 Sector Share (%) State service 432 30.95 87 22.72 Private sector 420 30.09 100 26.11 Proprietors 274 19.63 61 15.93 Public service 62 4.44 10 2.61 Liberal professions 61 4.37 7 1.83 Continuing education 114 8.17 108 28.2 Military service 9 0.64 9 2.35 No occupation 24 1.72 1 0.26 Total 1396 100 383 100 Occupation not specified 136 Did not respond 457 Dead 629 Grand total 2618 Sources: Alumni survey results (Pami atnai a knizhka vospitannikov Imperatorskogo S.- Peterburgskogo kommercheskogo uchilishcha, okonchivshikh kurs v 1850-1913 gg 1913, 193-194). Commercial Education for Women: Future Millionaires or Ideal Employees? Before the introduction of women’s commercial schools in the late 1890s, options to obtain specialized training for women were limited. Most technical skills were meant to be studied only by men. Women’s technical education in the form of apprenticeships and classes at special schools primarily consisted of sewing and needlework. This limitation was criticized from different positions. Educational specialists were concerned with seamstresses’ low pay and argued that women could and should earn a better living doing other jobs (Ia. T Mikhailovskiĭ 1890, 2). Others remarked on the lack of opportunities for women of higher statuses. One specialist noted that “there are plenty of young women who will not be content being a seamstress even for a decent pay, as they recognize their estate status [soslovnost’] and have pride” (V.I. Sreznevskiĭ 1890, 229). At the same time, conservative critics were worried that lack of professional schools open to girls, would lead to oversaturation of gymnasia—secondary schools aimed at the nobility and intelligentsia—with students of lower estates. 17 Gymnasium curricula for girls were shorter than for boys and did not include subjects necessary to continue on to higher education. Women were not allowed to enter Russian universities, but to pursue a liberal profession they could obtain qualifications at special university-level courses for women or abroad. Finding employment presented another set of difficulties. A gymnasium diploma was sufficient, however, to become a primary school teacher or a governess, but for higher levels of teaching a special course in pedagogy was required. Conservatives emphasized the difficulties female graduates faced in securing teaching 17 Conservatives had even bigger concerns about the presence of lower-class boys and Jews in elite schools. See, for example, Rus’. 1884. “Moskva, 15 avgusta”. [“Moscow, August 15.”] August 15. Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 75 positions as well as the alienation from their parents that educated women from lower estates were believed to experience. 18 These conservative arguments inspired possibly the first project for a women’s technical school with a commercial component. In 1880 Paulina Piotrowska, a well-known activist for women’s professional education, 19 published a project of a school charter, accompanied by a long essay elaborating her vision for the school and the overall aim of technical education for women. Her proposal is a valuable insight into the elite’s conception of the middle-estate working woman. Similarly to other conservative critics, she lamented the increasing demand for gymnasia schooling among middle-estate families, stressing the difficulty in finding employment and general uselessness of such education for “common women in need of work” (Piotrowska 1880, 4, 31). In Piotrowska’s opinion, the most desirable career for them lay in trade and industry as administrative employees, such as cashiers and bookkeepers, but also as businessowners. Special qualities like “exceptional talent in commerce, quick-thinking, precision, arithmetic, attention to detail, diligence and ability to compromise” gave women particular advantages over men (Piotrowska 1880, 8). 20 But rather than a potential for financial independence, Piotrowska viewed them as homemakers’ virtues. Referring to a successful German example, she believed that appropriate schooling should include household management skills, such as cooking, cleaning, sewing, etc. These skills combined with training in accounting, business correspondence, knowledge of commodities, currencies and foreign language would allow any woman to succeed in business, Piotrowska (1880, 23-28) argued; businesses with the most potential for women correspond to traditional feminine segments, for example, hospitality, food and dressmaking. Among positive examples of female entrepreneurship Piotrowska (1880, 46-49) referred to the success of Finnish dairy manufacturers and a noblewoman who established a glove factory. No less importantly, these schools were supposed to educate young women about the best practices of motherhood. In line with the idea of pedagogical motherhood, Piotrowska (1880, 35) claimed that raising children is women’s essential “civic duty” and women need adequate knowledge to succeed in it. Piotrowska (1880, 24) considered motherhood to be a full-time job and regarded business skills as a kind of insurance in case a woman stays unmarried or becomes a widow. Thus, Piotrowska (1880, 21) proposed the notion of smart, elevated domesticity, which prioritized motherhood, but where pursuit of financial gains was regarded as an appropriate channel for agency and ambition: “[if male] industrialists and merchants [kommersanty] earn millions, why shouldn’t women try improving their fortunes in the same way…”. It Is difficult to say how widely Piotrowska’s pamphlet was circulated, but she popularized her ideas on women’s professional education in a series of public lectures held in various towns across the Russian Empire. 21 Furthermore, similar interpretations of middle-estate 18 See, for example, M. Katkov 1884. “K voprosu o zhenskom obrazovanii. Progimnazii ili rukodel’nye shkoly.” [“On the Question of Women’s Education. Pro-gymnasia or Artisanal Schools.”] Moskovskie vedomosti. April 7. See also M. U. 1884. “Zhenskoe slovo o vospitanii zhenshchin.” [“A Woman’s Word on Women’s Upbringing.”] Rus’. April 15. 19 Also known as Paulina Korwin-Piotrowska. See Piotrowska’s short biography with description of her accomplishments in promoting women’s professional education in Penzenskie gubernskie vedomosti. 1892. “P.K. Korvin-Piotrovskai a.” October 21. 20 This belief in women’s practical minds had probably stemmed from J.S. Mill, whose work The Subjection of Women was well-known in Russia. 21 See reports about her lectures given in Moscow, Kazan, Penza, Perm and Kharkiv in Penzenskie gubernskie vedomosti. 1892. “P.K. Korvin-Piotrovskai a.” October 21; Penzenskie gubernskie vedomosti. 1892. “Lekt sii a P.K. Korvin-Piotrovskoĭ.” [“Lecture by P.K. Korwin-Piotrowska.”] October 25; Permskie gubernskie vedomosti. 1892. “Khronika.” [“Chronicle.”] December 2; I Uzhnyĭ kraĭ. 1895. “Lekt sii a g-zhi Korvin-Piotrovskoĭ.” [“Lecture by Mrs. P.K. Korwin-Piotrowska.”] November 21. Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 76 domesticity gained prominence at the time. For instance, new popular advice literature on consumption and household management was addressed primarily to women (Catriona Kelly 2001, 160-166, 171-172). Almost two decades after Piotrowska’s publication, another pamphlet entitled Family and Women’s Labor (1897) echoed her arguments. The author—L. A. Zolotarev—disapproved of married women working, referring to its detrimental impact on household, family life and happiness. Entrepreneurship, on the other hand, was regarded there as an appropriate channel for women’s “creativity”, which could “benefit our industry” (Zolotarev 1897, 55). The author gave two positive examples: the first, a woman who developed a production of artificial flowers, after studying the craft in Paris; the second, a woman who learned to dry fruits and vegetables and organized the manufacturing of these goods (ibid.). Thus, women’s entrepreneurial success is illustrated by businesses associated with a homemaker’s tasks like decoration or food preservation. When the reform of commercial education began in the early 1890s, schools for women also received more attention in public discourse and rose in prestige. While Piotrowska considered her school to be suitable for women of lower estates, in the 1890s educational specialists argued that higher commercial education was needed to provide respectable earning opportunities for women of more privileged backgrounds. A congress for specialists in technical education featured a presentation by Aleksandr Strannoli ubskiĭ, professor of mathematics and a staunch advocate for women’s education, who served in various positions at several schools for women. 22 This presentation outlined his view on upper-secondary professional education suitable for “women of the intelligentsia”. While most space in his speech was devoted to teaching, the suitability of commercial white-collar work for women was also discussed. Similarly to Piotrowska, he stressed inherent female qualities that gave women an advantage over men in these occupations: “conscientiousness, thoroughness and in particular … lack of neglect and truancy” (Strannoli ubskiĭ 1890, 224-225). However, in contrast to Piotrowska, who envisioned women’s success as entrepreneurs, Strannoli ubskiĭ considered women only as employees: cashiers, bookkeepers, and clerks. To strengthen his argument, he pointed toward appreciation of these female specialists, expressed by “a respectable and well-known Russian businessman [kommercheskiĭ dei atel’]” who said that women were better employees than men because they “do not drink nor party [ne kuti at]” (Strannoli ubskiĭ 1890, 224). Strannoli ubskiĭ considered professional skills and employment not only as insurance for non-marriageable women, but as a necessary step before marriage. In his view, professional life allowed women to mature intellectually and physically and, when married, increased the chances for a harmonious union between spouses (Strannoli ubskiĭ 1890, 204). This view also prescribed the appropriate age—from late teens to mid-twenties— for female clerical work. Thus, for Strannoli ubskiĭ women’s entry into the labor market was a temporary occupation, and not a career that implied upward mobility. Overall, if the dominant issues in early debates on the “woman question” revolved around women’s right for spiritual and intellectual growth and ability to succeed in certain professions, in the early twentieth century the focus shifted more strongly to employment. 23 As one commentator put it, the old question “can women have jobs?” was replaced by “should women compete with men for their jobs?” 24 One of the most vocal supporters of women’s integration into the labor market was commercial school teacher Mikhail KechedzhiShapovalov, who published extensively on commercial education, economics and women’s 22 See biographical sketch on Strannoli ubskiĭ in Obrazovanie. 1893. “Aleksandr Nikolaevich Strannoli ubskiĭ.” № 7-8. 23 One author who argued in the early 1860s that women’s liberation is impossible without financial independence was economist Marii a Vernadskaia (Vernadskai a 1862). 24 I.M. Stremovskiĭ 1903. “Zhenskiĭ trud.” [“Women’s Labor.”] Novosti, March 24. This essay provoked numerous reactions, which were published in the following issues. Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 77 liberation. 25 He pointed toward economic reasons driving women to the labor market. According to Kechedzhi-Shapovalov, the development of industrial means of production had rendered women’s role in domestic production “economically absurd”. In other words, he wrote, women ceased being producers and became consumers. 26 Kechedzhi-Shapovalov’s assessment contradicted popular advice by the likes of Piotrowska and Zolotarev, who saw business potential in female domestic labor and presented it as a guarantee for women’s financial security. Instead, he encouraged professional education leading to employment, including schools of commerce. Like Strannoli ubskiĭ, when discussing the benefits of commercial education for women, he mentioned the praise female administrative employees receive: “Moscow merchants [kommersanty] have spoken strongly about preferring female clerks to their male counterparts, as the former are more thorough and careful in their work” (Kechedzhi-Shapovalov 1902, 149). Another teacher, Joseph Goldstein, also mentioned employment opportunities as a major benefit of studying economics for women. 27 Even so, he described teaching girls as a frustrating task. In a public lecture he lamented passivity of his students, the cause of which he saw in upbringing (vospitanie): “Do not do this or that, you are not a boy! This is the phrase which defines the upbringing of contemporary women. [Such upbringing] destroys all originality, self-reliance and initiative [init siativa]”. 28 He then complained that female students, albeit hardworking and meticulous, are prone to memorizing textbooks instead of actually understanding of the topic. 29 Such complaints about women’s shallow learning style were a common trope among conservative writers, and were meant to undermine the women’s struggle for equal rights to education. 30 Here, however, Goldstein implicitly suggests that possessing the qualities that make women ideal candidates for clerical jobs means lacking the qualities associated with entrepreneurship, like initiative and originality, and asserts the masculine nature of the latter. 31 One more reason why educated women had a hard time claiming managerial authority is related to the respectability of female clerical work. To be fair, the image of male clerks in popular media was far from perfect. Like kupet s merchants, old-fashioned clerks were described as ignorant, untrustworthy, and despotic. 32 Still, the reputation of female clerks was 25 Kichedzhi-Shapovalov received the degree of candidate of commerce from Riga Polytechnical Institute. He taught at higher commercial, trade and industry, and accounting courses in Saint Petersburg (Kechedzhi-Shapovalov 1911). 26 M. Kechedzhi-Shapovalov 1901. “Istoricheskie sud’by zhenshchiny”. [“Woman’s Historical Fate.”] Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti, November 11. 27 Goldstein taught political economy and led seminars at Moscow University, Moscow Commercial Institute and Higher Courses for Women. 28 Golos Moskvy. 1909. “O zhenshchine”. [“About a Woman.”] March 6. 29 Perhaps not surprisingly, according to the Golos Moskvy reporter, women in the audience were not impressed by Goldstein’s speech: “A student, Ms Gurevich, suggested that the opinion leaders should re-educate themselves first, abandon this condescending attitude towards women pursuing education … and only then demand initiative and some ‘civic courage’ (grazhdanskoe muzhestvo)” (ibid.). 30 See M. Pogodin 1868. “Emansipatsii a zhenshchiny.” [“Women’s Emancipation.”] Russkiĭ, November 12; Russkie Vedomosti. 1898. “Zhenskiĭ vopros na s’’ezde germanskikh vracheĭ”. [“Woman’s Question at the Meeting of German Physicians.”] June 26. 31 Qualities like creativity, risk-taking and profit-seeking came to be associated with entrepreneurship and private initiative in Russian economic discourse as early as the mid-nineteenth century (Alberto Masoero 1994). 32 On the representation of clerks in Russian classical literature see Kaplunovskiy 2006, 390-396. Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 78 arguably worse: their work was associated with immoral behavior and prostitution. 33 The association was so strong that some observers believed clerks to be the dominant category among sex workers (Gudvan 1925, 141), although contemporary statistics did not support this notion. 34 After the revolution of 1905, when white-collar commercial workers began organizing and voicing their political demands (see Victoria Bonnell 1983), vulnerability to sexual predators became one of the main issues raised in relation to female clerks. 35 The most frequently cited reason behind supposedly high rates of female clerks among sex workers was low pay and the necessity to seek extra income. Women working in retail reported that their monthly wages were half of those received by their male counterparts, despite the same hours (13-15 hours per day) and often performing the same tasks as men (if not more). According to one female clerk, in the capital in the early 1910s male clerks’ monthly salary on average was 35-40 rubles, whereas female clerks earned 20-25 rubles, and in smaller shops as little as 6-18 rubles. 36 On top of that, according to multiple testimonies, shopkeepers required women to dress well and maintain attractive looks, which put an extra strain on their budget. 37 Moreover, female retail clerks frequently complained about sexual abuse and harassment from their clients and superiors. 38 Female office clerks, who were more likely to get specialized training, were in a better position than retail clerks, receiving on average a higher salary and working shorter hours. 39 Still, they too reported the threat of sexual abuse and prostitution. One office clerk under the pen name R.O. B-ver wrote: “you could rarely find a decent, well-paid job at a bank, without bribing the director or other superior with in kind contribution. I could name a dozen young women who made brilliant careers, only thanks to being agreeable”. 40 B-ver did not elaborate 33 See, for example, satirical texts where it is implied that female clerks grant sexual favors. Markiz de Trubakur. 1880. “Vygodnai a torgovli a.” [“Profitable Trade.”] Shut, August 27; Bazil’. 1891. “Negodovanie.” [“Indignation.”] Shut, July 13. 34 According to the Imperial Statistical Office and research conducted in Saint Petersburg by Obozenko the largest occupational group among sex workers were domestic servants (45 and 37.5 percent respectively), while clerks comprised only around 1 percent ( Andreĭ Dubrovskiĭ 1887, XXXIII; Petr Obozenko 1896, 22-23). 35 See section Prikazschichiĭ vopros [Clerks’ Question] in Novai a Rus’: Prodavshchit sa. [Saleswoman] 1908. “Zhenskiy trud.” [“Women’s Labor.”] Novai a Rus’, November 7; Prodavshchit sa A. [Saleswoman A.] 1908. “V Novo-Aleksandrovskom rynke.” [“At the Novo-Aleksandrovskii Market.”] Novai a Rus’, November 18; Prodavshchit sa Gostinago dvora F. [Saleswoman F. from Gostiny Dvor] 1906. “Obshchiĭ li soi uz dli a zhenshchin ili spetsial’no zhenskiĭ?” [“A Joint or a Women-only Union?”] Novai a Rus’, November 23; R.O. B-ver 1908. “Zhenkiĭ trud v liberal’nykh professii akh.” [“Women’s Labor in the Liberal Professions.”] Novai a Rus’, November 28; Novai a Rus’. 1908. “Trud zhenshchin v torgovle.” [“Women’s Labor in Trade.”] December 16; Novai a Rus’. 1908. “Zhenskiĭ trud v torgovle.” [“Women’s Labor in Trade.”] December 31; some of these testimonies also cited by Gudvan (1925, 136141). See also report by L. Ozinskaya on female clerks in Odesa delivered on the first Women’s Congress (1909, 340-343). 36 Vestnik Prikazchika. 1912. “Zhenshchiny-prodavshchit sy.” [“Saleswomen.”] September 25. 37 Prodavshchitsa. 1908. “Zhenskiĭ trud.” [“Women’s Labor.”] Novai a Rus’, November 7; Gostinodvorka. 1913. “K prodavshchit sam.” [“To Saleswomen.”] Vestnik Prikazchika, № 7. See also Gudvan 1905, 92; Ozinskaya 1909, 342. 38 A. Prodavshchit sa 1908. “V Novo-Aleksandrovskom rynke.” [“At the Novo-Aleksandrovskii Market.”] Novai a Rus’, November 18; Vestnik Prikazchika. 1912. “Zhenshchiny-prodavshchit sy.” [“Saleswomen.”] September 25. See also Ozinskaya 1909, 342. 39 R.O. B-ver 1908. “Zhenkiĭ trud v liberal’nykh professii akh.” [“Women’s Labor in the Liberal Professions.”] Novaia Rus’, November 28. See also report by P.P. Radushina delivered to the first Women’s Congress (Radushina 1909, 396-397). 40 R.O. B-ver 1908. “Zhenkiĭ trud v liberal’nykh professii akh.” [“Women’s Labor in the Liberal Professions.”] Novai a Rus’, November 28. Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 79 what a “brilliant career” meant for clerks like her, but she made it clear that professional merit played a far less important role in promotions for women than for men. The realities of female clerks were also different from the image suggested by advocates of female commercial education. Notably, trade unions of clerical workers resisted the categorization of white-collar work as a temporary occupation for young women and consistently included maternity leave in their demands (A. Belin 1906, 11, 31). Female clerks also lamented the age discrimination that made it harder for women in their thirties to get a job, as employers believed them to be “too old”. 41 While the likes of Strannoli ubskiĭ and Kechedzhi-Shapovalov cited anonymous businessmen praising female clerks for diligence and discipline, from the point of view of female workers they were driven by other motives. As one saleswoman put it on the pages of the clerical union paper, “capitalists” hire women because they cost less and are easier to control. 42 All in all, considering devaluation and commodification of their labor, lack of respect and an extremely subjugated position evident in testimonies from women in white-collar commercial jobs, it becomes clear that the idea of them climbing the social ladder by means of their qualifications and experience as male clerks aspired to was hardly plausible in the minds of contemporary men. Discussion and Concluding Comments In this article, I investigated how the introduction of formal commercial schools impacted women’s opportunities to receive specialized training as well as how their qualities were perceived and valued. I show that exclusion from trade apprenticeships did not prevent women from becoming proficient in business matters, but their access was mostly limited to women from merchant backgrounds. These women could claim their authority in similar ways to their male counterparts through legitimacy of their ownership underpinned by paternalistic ideology as well as expertise, but the former had a much higher significance for women. Meanwhile, exclusion of women from apprenticeships did restrict social mobility of women from the peasantry and urban poor and defined gradual meritocratic rise to business ownership as a male prerogative. Girls rarely became trade apprentices, so the establishment of commercial schools at different levels broadened their access to specialized knowledge. This change corresponds to the growing proportions of women in white-collar commercial jobs and their higher shares in more skilled positions. With new commercial schools, men and women had access to largely similar training, but imagined outcomes for each were different. The process of formulating these outcomes also underwent change. An early plan for a commercial school for women made by Piotrowska in the early 1880s, albeit emphasizing work as a second choice after motherhood, presented an empowering idea that domestic skills could be transformed into a lucrative enterprise. Yet, by the end of the century, when commercial schools for women became the reality, white-collar work replaced entrepreneurship as an end goal. Legitimacy of commercial education was firmly linked to the notion of expert masculinity and a meritocratic career. Whereas commercial education promised men a career, for women entry into commercial work was considered temporary and thus did not allow their growth into higher positions. Moreover, in the workplace female expertise was devalued through lower pay as well as commodification and sexualization of their work. In many ways the gendered division of education and labor within business organizations in Russia follows the trajectory observed in Western developed countries. Female clerical work in Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and the US was associated 41 Vestnik Prikazchika. 1912. “Zhenshchiny-prodavshchit sy.” [“Saleswomen.”] September 25. See also Prodavshchit sa. 1908. “Zhenskiy trud.” [“Women’s Labor.”] Novai a Rus’, November 7. 42 Vestnik Prikazchika. 1912. “Zhenshchiny-prodavshchit sy.” [“Saleswomen.”] September 25. Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 80 with “dead-end” positions for young women, who were paid less than men (Carole Adams 1988; Renate Bridenthal 1973; Susanne Dohrn 1989; Mátyás Erdélyi 2019; Kwolek-Folland 1994, ch. 2; Simonton 1998, ch. 11). Great similarities can also be seen between conceptualizations of female clerical work in late Imperial Russia and Mexico in the 1920s, where the entry of women into white-collar public sector jobs was also associated with both objectification and concerns over sexual vulnerability (Susie Porter 2023). At the same time, professionals seeking to create or preserve the prestige of their qualifications (re)defined them in masculine terms, contrasting themselves with less qualified women (Linda Kirkham and Anne Loft 1993; Kwolek-Folland 1994, ch. 3; Larsen 2011). Categorizations of disciplines and schools as more or less appropriate for a given social class in the Russian Empire resembled the French system. In both countries, too, commercial education had less prestige (Larsen 2011, 27-28; Godelier 2020, 221-222). Attitudes to women’s education were also strikingly similar: “over”-educated women were perceived as a threat to the social order, so women’s access to elite institutions was either restricted or prohibited and women’s education overall tended to have inferior quality (Larsen 2011, 31; see also Françoise Mayeur 1977; Juliette Rennes 2011). Despite these similarities, commercial education for women developed differently. In France, inclusion of women into the framework of higher commercial schools was fraught, as these institutions emulated and competed with engineering and polytechnical schools to attract male students from bourgeois elites (Larsen 2011). In Germany and AustriaHungary, campaigns of female clerks for equality in male and female commercial programs were met with opposition from professional associations and reluctance from officials to reform the system (Adams 1988, ch. 9; Erdélyi 2019, 42-52). In contrast, in Russia women’s access to commercial education was not an issue for the state, conservative elites or business. Witte’s Ministry of Finance made development of professional education its explicit policy and prioritized the need to increase the domestic supply of industry and commerce specialists. Conservatives pushed commercial education as a safe alternative for women, which could give them desired intellectual growth and dignified living, without the threat of radicalization. While the business community was not unanimous about the need for formal education, it understood the benefits of the female workforce, so it did not contest the inclusion of women. In these circumstances commercial education in Russia assumed a more utilitarian aim. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisors Jari Eloranta and Laura Ekholm for their invaluable support of this work. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to the participants at the 2023 YSI Doctoral Workshop, 2023 Economic and Business History Society annual meeting, and the anonymous reviewers, whose insightful questions and comments enhanced the quality and rigor of this piece. Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 81 Works Cited Abdrakhmanov, Konstantin Alekseevich. 2017. “Otrazhenie trudovoĭ povsednevnosti zhenshchin kupecheskogo soslovii a v rossiĭskoĭ istoriografii XIX-XXI vv.” [“Depiction of Daily Business Life of Women from the Merchant Class in Russian Historiography from 19th Century to 21st Century.”] Vestnik Orenburgskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedagogicheskogo Universiteta. Ėlektronnyĭ Nauchnyĭ Zhurnal [Vestnik of the Orenburg State University. Online Edition] (3 (23)). Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4 (2): 139-158. Adams, Carole E. 1988. Women Clerks in Wilhelmine Germany: Issues of Class and Gender. Cambridge [Eng.]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, Gregory (ed.). 1989. The White-Blouse Revolution: Female Office Workers Since 1870. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press. Belin, A. 1906. Professionalʹnoe dvizhenie torgovykh sluzhashchikh v Rossii. [Professional Movement of Trade Employees in Russia.] Moscow. Bertgoldt, Grigoriĭ Vasilʹevich. 1900. Ustav torgovyĭ (st. 1-104, t. XI, ch. 2 izd. 1893 g.) o prikazchikakh, poverennykh i kommissionerakh, tovarishchestvakh: polnom, na vere i artelʹnom: Sb. resheniĭ Grazhd. kassat s. dep. Pravitelʹstvui ushchego senata. [Commercial Statute (Articles 1-104, Vol. XI, Part 2 of the edition of 1893) on Clerks, Attorneys and Brokers, Partnerships: General, Limited and Cooperatives: Collection of Decisions of the Civil Cassation Dept. of the Government Senate. of the Governing Senate.] Moscow: F.V. Busygin. Bessolitsyn, Aleksandr Alekseevich. 2012. “Ministerstvo finansov i formirovanie sistemy kommercheskogo obrazovanii a v Rossii na rubezhe XIX-XX vekov.” [“The Ministry of Finance and the Establishment of the Commercial Education System in Russia at the Turn of the 19th-20th Centuries.”] Ekonomicheskaia istoria [Economic History] 3 (12): 16-23. Bessolitsyn, A.A. 2014. “Kommercheskoe obrazovanie v Evrope: germanskiĭ opyt i ego ispolʹzovanie v Rossii v nachale XX veka.” [“Commercial Education in Europe: German Experience and its Implementation in Russia at the Beginning of the 20th Century.”] Istoriko-ėkonomicheskie issledovanii a [Research in Economic History] 15 (1): 173192. Bilenko, Nikita Alekseevich. 2018. “Torgovai a pravosub”ektnostʹ poddannykh Rossiĭskoĭ imperii vo vtoroĭ polovine XIX v.” [“Economic Rights of Citizens in the Russian Empire in the Second Half of the 19th Century.”] In Torgovli a, kupechestvo i tamozhennoe delo v Rossii v XVI-XIX vv. [Trade, Merchants and Customs in Russia in the 16th-19th Centuries], edited by A.I. Razdorskiy, 416-422. Nizhniy Novgorod: IP Yakushov Yu. I. Boborykin, Pyotr Dmitryevich. 1883a. 1 Kitay-gorod. Saint Peterburg, Moscow: T-vo M.O. Vol’f. Boborykin, Pyotr Dmitryevich. 1883b. 2 Kitay-gorod. Saint Peterburg, Moscow: T-vo M. O. Vol’f. Bödeker, Hans Erich. 2012. “Economic Societies in Germany, 1760-1820: Organisation, Social Structures and Fields of Activities.” In The Rise of Economic Societies in the Eighteenth Century: Patriotic Reform in Europe and North America, edited by Koen Stapelbroek and Jani Marjanen, 182-211. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Bonnell, Victoria E. 1983. Roots of Rebellion: Workers’ Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1900-1914. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bowman, Linda. 2003. “Seeking Salvation: Moral Economies and Management at the Morozov Mills, 1885-1905.” Social History 28 (3): 322-345. Essays in Economic & Business History 42 (1) 2024 82 Bradley, Joseph. 2009. Voluntary Associations in Tsarist Russia: Science, Patriotism, and Civil Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bri ant sev, Mikhail V. 1999. Kulʹtura russkogo kupechestva. Vospitanie i obrazovanie. [Culture of the Russian Merchant. Upbringing and Education.] Bri ansk: Kursiv. Bri ant sev, Mikhail V. 2000. “Russkoe kupechestvo: Sot siokulʹturnyĭ aspekt formirovanii a predprinimatelʹstva v Rossii v kont se XVIII - nachale XX vv.” [“Russian Merchantry: Sociocultural Aspect of Entrepreneurship Formation in Russia at the End of 18th until the Beginning of the 20th Century.”] Doctoral dissertation. Moscow Pedagogical State University. Bridenthal, Renate. 1973. “Beyond Kinder, Küche, Kirche: Weimar Women at Work.” Central European History 6 (2): 148-166. Buryshkin, Pavel Afanasʹevich. 1990. Moskva kupecheskai a. [Merchant Moscow.] Moscow: Stolit sa. Byker, Tanya, and Amanda Gregg. 2019. “Female Partners and Corporate Founders in Imperial Russia, 1894”. Working paper. Carnaffan, Gladys. 1989. “Commercial Education and the Female Office.” In The WhiteBlouse Revolution: Female Office Workers Since 1870, edited by Gregory Anderson, 67-87. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press. Chandler, Alfred D. 1971. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Crowston, Clare. 2008. “Women, Gender, and Guilds in Early Modern Europe: An Overview of Recent Research.” International Review of Social History 53 (S16): 19-44. Davidoff, Leonore, and Catherine Hall. 1987. Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class 1780-1850. London: Hutchinson. Davies, Margery. 1993. “Woman’s Place is at the Typewriter: The Feminization of the Clerical Labor Force.” In Volume 8/1 Professional and White-Collar Employments, edited by Nancy F. Cott, 228-255. Berlin, Boston: K.G. Saur. Dohrn, Susanne. 1989. “Pioneers in the Dead-End Profession: The First Women Clerks in Banks and Insurance Companies.” In The White-Blouse Revolution: Female Office Workers Since 1870, edited by Gregory Anderson, 48-66. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press. Dubrovskiĭ, Andreĭ Vasilʹevich (ed.). 1887. Prostitut sii a: po obsledovanii u 1-go avgusta 1889 goda. [Prostitution: Results of the Survey Conducted on August 1st 1889.] Saint Peterburg: T Sentralʹnyĭ statisticheskiĭ komitet Ministerstva vnutrennikh del. Elias, Allison. 2020. “‘Measured by Two Yardsticks’: Women in Bank Management Training, 1960s to 1990s.” Management & Organizational History 15 (2): 132-153. Engwall, Lars, Matthias Kipping, and Behlül Üsdiken. 2016. Defining Management: Business Schools, Consultants, Media. New York: Routledge. Engwall, Lars, and Vera Zamagni. 1998. Management Education in Historical Perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Erdélyi, Mátyás. 2019. “Experts in the Bureau: Private Clerks and Capitalism in the Late Habsburg Monarchy.” Doctoral dissertation. Central European University. Fellman, Susanna. 2001. “The Professionalisation of Management in Finland:” Scandinavian Economic History Review 49 (3): 5-27. Filatkina, Natalii a Aleksandrovna, and Alekseĭ Vikulovich Morozov. 2004. “Vospominanii a A. V. Morozova (publikatsiya).” [“Memoirs of A.V. Morozov (publication).”] In Staroobri adchestvo v Rossii (XVII-XX vv.): Sb. nauch. trudov [Old Belief in Russia (18th-20th Centuries)], edited by E.M. I Ukhimenko, 542-553. Moscow: I Azyki slavi anskoĭ kulʹtury. Filatova, Svetlana Vladimirovna. 2016. “‘Prikazchik, grosh v i ashchik, a pi atak za sapog’: naëmnye sluzhashchie torgovykh kupecheskikh zavedeniĭ vo vtoroĭ polovine XIX - Peshko: Apprenticeships and Formal Business Schooling in Late Imperial Russia 89 Volkova, Anna Ivanovna. 1913. Vospominanii a, dnevnik i statʹi. [Memoirs, Diaries and Articles.] Nizhniy Novgorod: A. S. Vishni akov. Wagner, William G. 1994. Marriage, Property, and Law in Late Imperial Russia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Warner, Malcolm. 1987. “Industrialization, Management Education and Training Systems: A Comparative Analysis [1].” Journal of Management Studies 24 (1): 91-112. Weber, Max. 2019. Economy and Society: A New Translation. Edited by Keith Tribe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, Kristin S., and Albert J. Mills. 2019. “The Problem with Women: A Feminist Interrogation of Management Textbooks.” Management & Organizational History 14 (2): 148-166. Zolotarev, L.A. 1897. Semʹi a i zhenskiĭ trud. [Family and Women’s Labor] Moscow: Selfpublished. Newspapers Golos Moskvy [Voice of Moscow] I Uzhnyĭ kraĭ [Southern Lands] Moskovskie vedomosti [Moscow News] Moskvich [Muscovite] Novai a Rus’ [New Ruthenia] Novosti [News] Obrazovanie [Education] Penzenskie gubernskie vedomosti [Penza Province News] Permskie gubernskie vedomosti [Perm’ Province News] Promyshlennost’ i Torgovli a [Industry and Trade] Rus’ [Ruthenia] Russkiĭ [Russian] Russkie vedomosti [Russian News] Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti [Saint Petersburg News] Shut [Joker] Vestnik Prikazchika [Clerk’s Bulletin]