Fitzpatrick, Sheila (ed.). Stalinism: New Directions

Fitzpatrick, Sheila (ed.). Stalinism: New Directions. New York: Routledge, 2000.

In the introduction, Fitzpatrick sets the agenda: to delineate directions of new (methodologically, as well as in terms of materials involved) research on Stalinism, which increasingly takes shape of socio-cultural research. She describes the dominant trends in the field, including a growing interest to the Soviet subjectivity, construction of social and ethnic entities, voluntary participation of Soviet citizens in the Stalinist practices, etc.

The first essay by Sheila Fitzpatrick “Ascribing class. The construction of social identity in Soviet Russia” reverses the Marxist maxima that thesis that class identities are created by socioeconomic circumstances: instead, as Fitzpatrick argues in her book, they did not exist as part of social reality, but were instead discursive constructs created through Soviet political writing and praxis. She looks at the initial moment of the revolution to describe how sosloviia were dissolved and, instead, new institutions and principles introduced to restructure the Soviet society in class terms (restriction to education or administrative positions to exploiting classes, e.g.). New personal strategies to avoid ascription to stigmatized classes (bourgeoisie, kulaks, etc.) emerge, as do also rituals of “unmasking” class enemies. Internal passport system as a means to fix the ascribed class identity.  A reverse trend towards soslovnost where social position in the Soviet society was determined by the service to the state.

Sarah Davies (Durham) in “‘Us against Them’: Social Identity in Soviet Russia, 1934–1941” explores how new identities were reinforce through ‘negative identification’ with Soviet power-holders. The research is based on examination of the NKVD and party files with reports on “political state of mind” among the population, and extrapolation of this material to social relations in the USSR is tricky. Eventually, the purpose of the chapter is not very clear. She argues that “some people continued to view their world as polarized between two groups, those with power, and those without.” (66) But this is on the basis of a very biased source, and rather obvious, and what then?

Jochen Hellbeck (Rutgers University) examines the writing of a diary as a process which facilitated the internalization of Soviet values. “Individual subjectivity as a constitutive element of the Soviet system” (78). Writing as a means to “overcome doubts” in the building of Communism. How Stepan Podlubnyi accepted the stigma of being a kulak’s son and decided to reforge himself into a new Soviet man. His attempts at incorporating the official state values lead to their very deep internalization; when he rebels against repressive state practices, this turns out to be a schizophrenic rebellion. It’s interesting: Hellbeck doesn’t make this conclusion, but wasn’t Podlubnyi’s experience of reading all Marxist literature that exact experience which taught him elements of critical theory and gave him optics to re-assess the Stalinist regime. Also: later phenomenon: “good communists” build Communisms on their own, without the help from the Communist Party – this could be an early indication of a similar phenomenon.

Vladimir Kozlov (GARF)’s “Denunciation and its functions in Soviet governance” offers a classification of types of denunciation, which is actually not very convincing, since he starts with differentiating them into “disinterested” and “interested,” but not offering any insights, e.g., into interests behind seeming “disinterestedness”: what were/could be political, social or cultural factors which forced people to engage in this kind of activities? Alexei Kozhevnikov offers a re-interpretation of the post-WWII management of science and academic scholarship in the Soviet Union by looking at the link the use of the institution of intraparty democracy (diskussiia, kritika i samokritika) by different groups to win/confirm superiority in the system of management of Soviet scholarship. He analyzes post-war debates in philosophy, biology and linguistics to argue that upgraded social status of Soviet scholars brought about their tighter communication and contact with party elites and forced them to learn the language games of the latter. He also argues that a symbiosis emerged, in which Soviet bureaucrats “prescribed certain operative procedures with open agendas and outcome” to provoke debates and conflict among scholars. They, then, regulated and moderated these debates and conflicts, thus confirming their superior authority over scholarship. In return, Soviet scholars had to master the language of bureaucratic elites in order to get promoted and, sometimes, even survive (167).

Julie Hessler “Cultured Trade. The Stalinist Turn towards Consumerism” looks at discourse of “cultured trade” as a way to bridge the gap between the reality of shortages of nearly everything and the promised advances in material life that socialism was supposed to bring with it. Also, “education” of Soviet people through “cultured” trade. Style of commodities as important as their material value. The abolition of food rationing in 1935 as that point of entry when the Soviet government enters into a new relationship with Soviet people – that of encouraged materialism. Influence of American consumer model. The didactic role of exhibitions of consumer goods. One thing is, however, rather dubious: discussing magazine advertisements, Hessler writes: “the advertisements purveyed a bourgeois and civilized lifestyle along with the goods that formed their nominal subject.” (197) Why bourgeois? What makes her argue that this tendency in the development of Soviet consumer culture was “bourgeois”? It seems to be a convenient label, but it imposes a very specific interpretation of her material, and a not very convincing one. “Alliance” between Soviet ideologists and “bourgeois housewives” – why, once again, bourgeois? Why a cultural category instead of an analytical category?

Vadim Volkov discusses the concept of kulturnost’ in its dynamics of development in the post-war Soviet society. He argues that through this concept, the Stalinist state attempted to invade and conquer the private sphere of Soviet people. This changed the status of material things in the process, making them materialization of kulturnost. Speech: learning rhetorical models as a way to become a true Soviet person.

Lewis Siegelbaum’s “‘Dear comrade, you ask what we need.’ Socialist paternalism and Soviet rural ‘notables’ in the mid-1930s”  looks at one particular case of Soviet paternalism: that is, the system of legitimation of power through production and consumption (products are granted not as result of acquisition or exchange, but as result of service). He discusses what material things kolkhoz workers who became shockworkers asked as reward and argues that it was one of form of socialist paternalism. Curiously, while his cases bring in numerous examples of how this paternalism didn’t actually work (on the practical level—it did on the discursive one, though) due to bureaucracy, he doesn’t discuss it.

James R. Harris (University of Leeds) in “The Purging of Local Cliques in the Urals Region, 1936-7) discusses how local party bureaucracy used its power resources to avoid early Stalinist purges, only to create an impression of a full-scale conspiracy which led to its total repression in the Great Terror. Paul Hagenloh (Syracuse University) looks at the repression of criminals as a ‘bridge’ (in terms of repressive practices) between the collectivization campaign and the Great Terror, arguing that they became a ‘testing ground’ for practices that would be used in a larger scale after 1936.