Review

General Books

Sheila Fitzpatrick, University of Chicago professor and recognized spokesperson for the revisionist history of the Stalinist period, gives us another volume in the Rewriting Histories series edited by Jack R. Censer. Fitzpatrick assembles previously published articles and chapters by a dozen authors she finds representative of the search for "a new paradigm of scholarship." The editor provides an illuminating introduction in which she attempts to identify two general approaches: that of the "neo-traditionalists" who explain "why and how Stalinism generated...'neo-traditional' phenomena"; and "modernists" who prefer to see Stalinism as "an important alternative form" to Western modernity. Although the editor wisely declines to predict which of these social-science approaches will eventually dominate, she clearly has her favorite, for she identifies only one self-proclaimed neo-traditionalist (Terry Martin). However, a careful reading of the individual articles suggests that neo-traditionalism is stronger than she leads us to believe, and may even be the dominant characteristic of her own work, as represented in the very first sample.	1
Fitzgerald's article, "Ascribing Class" concludes that Stalin had to do what Catherine II had had to do, and for the same reason: real class structure in Russia was too weak to serve the purposes of administration. This thesis clearly fits the editor's own definition of neo-traditionalism, as does Julie Hessler's "Cultured Trade," which presents yet another example of the long-recognized tendency of Russians to distort a Western model to the point of caricature (in this case, Macy's Department Store). Vladimir A. Kozlov, in "Denunciation and its Functions in Soviet Governance," similarly deals with a characteristic Russian practice. In "The Purging of Local Cliques in the Urals Region, 1936-7," James R. Harris presents us with a struggle between the center (Moscow) and the region (Sverdlovsk Oblast) that would have been familiar to any tsar.	2
Another group of articles tends to employ the methodologies of revisionist history to reinforce or support traditional scholarly insights, rather than explain traditional aspects of Stalinism itself. Terry Martin's "Modernization or Neo-Traditionalism" prefers a "neo-traditionalist" sociopolitical model that explains how the Stalinist state substituted itself for tradition. Lewis H. Siegelbaum's "Dear Comrade, you ask what we Need," analyzes wish-lists of winners in a dairy contest to provide support for the time-honored view that the Soviet state "had enormous power to dictate needs." Similarly, Jochen Hellbeck's "Diary of Stepan Podlubnyi, 1931-1939," gives us a picture of a man engineering his own soul, which would support any theory of totalitarianism. "The Concept of Kul'turnost'" by Vadim Volkov uses Foucaultian theory to lead us to "Bolshevik consciousness" (learning to think the Bolshevik way). In "The USSR as a Communal Apartment," Yuri Slexkine brings the insights of Soviet life to bear on the seeming paradox of ideological socialists functioning as nation-builders. In this collection, Slezkine's article is unique in that it regards the beliefs of Lenin and Stalin as important in explaining the course of Soviet development.	3
Three of Fitzgerald's selections present us with a USSR, which, if modern, was so in a way not in accord with the ideals of the West. Sarah Davies's "Us against Them" analyzes the language of social identity and finds, for example, that the people employed the terror of 1937 to get revenge on their rulers. Alexei Kojevnikov, in "Games of Stalinist Democracy," reinterprets five prominent scientific conferences to show that what was at work was the imposition of Party rites on the academic world. And in his "Socially Harmful Elements and the Great Terror," Paul Hagenloh shows that there were no years of "relaxation" between Collectivization and the Purge, because the police were then busy with mass arrests and executions of criminals and misfits.	4
Fitzgerald's selection is probably predictive of the future of this field of study, unless, by some unforeseeable development, a concern with ideas, politics, and individuals returns to the academic mainstream. Anthropology, sociology, and linguistics inform all of these articles more than does the traditional historical method. The authors also assume considerable knowledge on the part of the reader, and their works would make little or no sense to the uninitiated. On the other hand, professors, teachers, graduate students in the field, advanced undergraduates, and anyone with a basic knowledge of Soviet history will benefit from reading Stalinism: New Directions.	5
Grand Valley State University   Edward Alan Cole

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.