Stalinism New Directions (Rewriting Histories)

Stalinism: New Directions (Rewriting Histories) By Sheila Fitzpatrick
1999 | 396 Pages | ISBN: 041515233X | PDF | 2 MB
Sheila Fitzpatrick has put together an anthology of essays from the "new generation" of Russian/Soviet scholars to emerge within the last decade. The thread of methodology incorporated here harbors on the social/cultural with a sprinkling of post-modernism with its emphasis on rhetoric and language. All of the essays rely heavily on the availability of new archival sources since the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991. Sarah Davies ("'Us Against Them': Social Identity in Soviet Russia, 1934-41") reveals the "popular mood" of Soviet society through her analysis of anonymous hate mail sent to various ruling boroughs from the "little people" (pp. 47, 55). One is amazed at the oftentimes-brazen attacks coming from a population living within a "totalitarian" state that promotes terror to achieve its political ends. This article is one of the highlights of the book. The Soviet individual is the topic of three of the book's essays. Jochen Hellbeck's ("Fashioning the Stalinist Soul: The Diary of Stepan Podlubnyi, 1931-39) psychoanalysis of the diary of a Kulak's son to reveal one's inner turmoil of conforming to the new Soviet society raises some interesting questions about historical methodology. Vladimir A. Kozlov ("Denunciation and its Functions in Soviet Governance: From the Archive of the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs, 1944-53") employs a similar approach to explore motivations of written denunciations in the post World War II period. In a slightly different vain, Alexei Kojevnikov ("Games of Stalinist Democracy: Ideological Discussions in Soviet Sciences 1947-52") argues against the Lysenko model claiming not all Soviet scholars and scientist paid lip service to the ruling body. Other pieces take a look at the needs of Soviet society. Julie Hessler ("Cultured Trade: The Stalinist Turn Towards Consumerism") believes the mindset of Soviet citizens remained fixed on a "culture of shortages" in spite of official policies to promote a culture of consumerism (p. 194). Vadim Volkov (The Concept of Kul'turnost': Notes on the Stalinist Civilizing Process") explores the concept of Kul'turnost' (culturedness) before communism and how the Bolsheviks attempted to modify this intangible notion. As with many recent historians, Lewis H. Siegelbaum ("'Dear Conrade, You Ask What We Need': Socialist Paternalism and Soviet Rural 'notables' in the mid-1930's) also gleans from written letters to question the effectiveness of the Soviet reward and punishment system (paternalism) in the 1930's. Perhaps Volkov's article, though noteworthy, seems a bit out of place sandwiched between the other two contributions. Another section is devoted to the effects of terror on the lower rungs of Soviet society. James R. Harris ("The Purging of Local Cliques in the Urals Region, 1936-7") describes the "coping strategies" devised by the local regional (oblast) leadership to protect themselves from the state bureaucracies as well as, Stalin's reaction to them (p. 267). Paul M. Hagenloh ("'Socially Harmful Elements' and the Great Terror") shows the significance broad ranging crime (what he refers to as "marginal") and the police campaigns to combat it played in the overall picture of the Great Terror. Ethnicity and nationalism provide the themes of the final two essays. Yuri Slezkine ("The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism") shows that the Soviet regime exhibited a sympathetic attitude to nationalist/ethnic groups in spite of its proletarian ideology. In a jingoistic laced essay, Terry Martin ("Modernization or Neo-Traditionalism? Ascribed Nationality and Soviet Primordialism") utilizes the theory of nationalism (principally Earnest Gellner's interpretations) as "an excellent test case" (p. 350) to compare the modernization and neo-traditionalist paradigms invented by scholars as a means of studying Russia's diverse ethnic and national population. Complimenting Sheila Fitzpatrick's own contribution to this book ("Ascribing Class: The Construction of Social Identity in Soviet Russia"), Martin concludes it was the latter paradigm that reigns supreme in spite of the fact that Communism societies do not advocate a return to traditional modes of society. Undoubtedly recent archival material played heavily into the contributions of this book. Of course this is a positive step in the advancement of Russian historiography. An underlying idea throughout this collection of essays, however, prompts one to ask whether the plethora of newly available archival material is, in one respect, the tail wagging the dog. To clarify, we as historians are taught to begin by formulating an historical question, then consult primary and secondary evidence to conform or refute a thesis. Not that this methodology is carved in stone, still, by reading the contributions of the "new generation" of Russian scholars, this reviewer gets the impression that these researchers are working backwards. That is to say, they travel to the vast reservoirs of new material, collect whatever they can get their hands on and, only then, do they synthesize the material into a workable theory. The tail (new archival material) is wagging the dog (imaginative research). This point is well illustrated in Mark von Hagen's article ("The Archival Gold Rush and Historical Agendas in the Post-Soviet Era," Slavic Review, April, 1993) and magnified within this collection of essays.