Igor Tarbeev | Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Igor Tarbeev

Новый исторический вестник, 2023

Since the 1960s, the Cuban Missile Crisis was considered the most dangerous event of the Cold War... more Since the 1960s, the Cuban Missile Crisis was considered the most dangerous event of the Cold War. However, in Soviet historiography there is only one article devoted entirely to the crisis. Furthermore, it explored the crisis within the narrow framework of American studies. Soviet historiography of the Cuban Missile Crisis presents a paradox. On the one hand, it declares the historical significance of the event. On the other, Soviet researchers did not study it in detail and barely mentioned it in their books. The article examines the discourse of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the popular books of Soviet Amerikanists, whose narratives were designed for a wide Soviet audience. To do this, the author examines the contexts in which the crisis was placed, i.e., the history of the United States, the post-war development of U.S. foreign policy, and the presidency of John F. Kennedy. The context of John F. Kennedy’s presidency is especially important since the president was a representative of American foreign policy. During the crisis, the young and energetic president becomes a hostage to his entourage that remains unnamed. The author explains such a contrast in descriptions of Kennedy through Alexei Yurchak’s theory of language and hypernormalization. The transformation of Kennedy’s image and the usage of ideological clichés as explanatory models, as well as the internal political and ideological context of the USSR, lead to the depersonalization of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Soviet historiography, which turned the crisis from the most important event of the Cold War into a “non-event.”

Уже с 1960-х гг. Карибский кризис считался самым опасным эпизодом Холодной войны. Однако в советской историографии есть только одна статья, целиком посвященная кризису, а упоминание кризиса допускалось исключительно в рамках американистики. Однако в советской историографии существует парадокс: при декларируемой исторической значимости Карибского кризиса, советские исследователи не рассматривают его подробно, ограничиваясь лишь небольшими упоминаниями кризиса в своих монографиях. В статье исследуется дискурс о Карибском кризисе в популярных книгах советских американистов, нарративы которых были рассчитаны на широкую советскую аудиторию. Для этого автор последовательно рассматривает контексты, в которые помещался кризис: история США, послевоенное развитие американской внешней политики, президентство Дж. Кеннеди. Контекст президенства Дж. Кеннеди особенно важен, так как образу президента уделено особое внимание на фоне Карибского кризиса. Во время кризиса молодой и энергичный президент становится заложником своего окружения, которое остается неназванным. Такой контраст в описаниях Кеннеди автор объясняет через теорию гипернормализации языка А.В. Юрчака. В результате смещения образа Кеннеди и использования идеологических клише в качестве объяснительных моделей, а также внутреннего политического и идеологического контекста СССР становятся причиной деперсонификации нарративов о Карибском кризисе в советской историографии, превратив его из важнейшего события Холодной войны в «не-событие».

Journal of Russian American Studies, 2022

Western observers and scholars had described Russia though oriental images and metaphors since th... more Western observers and scholars had described Russia though oriental images and metaphors since the Early modern times. The Soviet Union was also perceived through this long-living tradition. It is especially interesting that Soviet journalists and scholars specializing in the USA (Amerikanists) also started using oriental metaphors and images to describe XX century America.
This article focuses on the so called ‘Orientalization’ of America that took place in the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev’s era. Like the Orient from the famous work by Edward Said, and using Marxist ideas of European origin, Soviet experts excluded America from historical time and social progress.
But unlike Said’s Orient, the USA were economically and technically ahead of the USSR. I argue that Soviet Amerikanists disconnected social modernization from an economic one. According to this view, America was technologically modernized but at the same time failed social modernization, while the Soviet Union was quite the opposite.

ISTORIYA

Recordings of conversations between Soviet amerikanists (experts for US studies) and American sci... more Recordings of conversations between Soviet amerikanists (experts for US studies) and American scientists, politicians, public figures, and businessmen became an important information source for experts and for the Soviet party leadership. In the late 1960s — early 1970s these conversations played the role of an informal channel connecting representatives of American and Soviet elites through the Institute for US Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Using the theory of cultural transfer and the methodology of social constructivism, the author of this article conducts a detailed analysis of an information note that was sent to the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Institute for US Studies in 1969. The note is a recording of a conversation between amerikanists and American businessman Charles Thornton. It contains Thornton’s statements about the perception of the USSR in the United States; Soviet economic development and American-Soviet cooperation opportunities; American prin...

$Research paper thumbnail of Трансфер идей в советско-американских отношениях на рубеже 1960—1970-х гг. (на примере экспертной деятельности Института США АН СССР) \ Transfer of Ideas in Soviet-American Relations at the Turn of the 1960—1970s (Based on the Example of the Expert Activity of the Institute for US Studies)$

Электронный научно-образовательный журнал «История», 2021

Записи разговоров советских американистов с американскими учеными, политиками, общественными деят... more Записи разговоров советских американистов с американскими учеными, политиками, общественными деятелями и бизнесменами становились важным источником информации как для экспертов, так и для советского партийного руководства. В конце 1960-х — начале 1970-х гг. эти беседы играли роль неформального канала, связывающего представителей американской и советской элит через Институт США АН СССР. Опираясь на теорию культурного трансфера и методологию социального конструктивизма, автор данной статьи проводит подробный анализ информационной записки Института США, посланной в ЦК КПСС в 1969 г. Записка представляет собой запись беседы с американским бизнесменом Ч. Торнтоном и содержит высказывания американца о восприятии СССР в США; советском экономическом развитии и возможностях сотрудничества; об американских принципах управления и организации производства. В контексте разрядки международной напряженности и проводящейся экономической реформы американский опыт становится для СССР референтным. Идеи вызывают бурную реакцию в среде советской партийной элиты: на полях остается множество отметок читателей из разных отделов ЦК. Однако, несмотря на благоприятную среду и интерес со стороны чиновников, записку не обсуждают, на основе нее не принимают никаких конкретных решений. Тем не менее, исследование этого кейса позволяет поставить ряд вопросов о советско-американском трансфере идей, образе США в СССР и процессе принятия внутри- и внешнеполитических решений.

English abstract is inside the paper.

RSUH/RGGU. Series “Political Science. History. International Relations, 2018

The article discusses the emergence of American studies in the Soviet Union (Amerikanistika) as a... more The article discusses the emergence of American studies in the
Soviet Union (Amerikanistika) as a special expert-analytical discipline in the
1950s–1960s using a social constructivist approach. The author attempts not only to write the history of A American studies, but for the first time to comprehend it as a phenomenon and factor of the “cold war” using the socio-constructive approach and the analysis of the socio-political demand for expert-academic knowledge in the USSR in the second half of the 1950s and 1960s.
This demand shaped the Soviet American studies in a particular way: it was
focused simultaneously on both academic and practical knowledge. American studies has constructed a certain image of the American “Other”. That image was subsequently used in the development of foreign policy towards the United States and in domestic policy to construct a Soviet identity different from the American “Other”. Studying the processes of academic construction of the United States and the use of the construct contribute to better understand the features of the Soviet-American relations in a bipolar world.

Keywords: American studies, Cold War, expert knowledge, academic
knowledge, Soviet-American relations, academic “Other”

RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. “Political Science. History. International Relations” Series, 2020

By the end of the 1960s the first expert and academic centers had been established in the USSR. T... more By the end of the 1960s the first expert and academic centers had
been established in the USSR. These centers were to submit position papersand reports containing deep multi-dimensional analysis of international processes. The Soviet leadership used these conclusions, forecasts and specific proposals in the process of making political decisions.
This article examines the place expert-academic Amerikanistika occupied in the system of Soviet foreign policy expertise. Expert’s reports related to international issues were sent to the General and International Departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU. This paper is based on these documents, which are stored in the Russian State Archives of Contemporary History.
The analysis of these primary sources allows us to first specify the range of those Soviet expert organizations that were carrying out research on the USA and then divide expert Amerikanistika into two parts. The notes left in the analyzed reports by the Central Committee staff as well as the memoirs give us an opportunity to examine the role of the expert-academic institutes within the system of the foreign policy of the USSR.
Basing on the study of the reports, the author formulates a hypothesis about the functioning of the expert-academic community as a special channel of information that could not be obtained from any other experts.

Keywords: Cold War, Soviet-American relations, Soviet foreign policy expertise, American studies, Institute for the US and Canadian Studies, IMEMO, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, ISKRAN

Thesis Chapters by Igor Tarbeev

MA Thesis, 2017

Nikita Khrushchev's trip to the United States is usually described within a framework of Berlin c... more Nikita Khrushchev's trip to the United States is usually described within a framework of Berlin crisis. This imposes a very specific perspective in studying it. As the visit had almost no impact on international relations, historians were not really focusing on it in detail. But I suggest to use this particular visit in order to look at the Cold War and Soviet-American relations from the perspective "from below"-of the "American people" (which is of course a very complex and composite category), media and academic publications of intellectuals. What was the ordinary people's vision of the Cold War? How was this vision formed? What did they expect from the visit? How was this visit presented by the media and how was it perceived by the broader public? How was this event described in analytical books and how was this description changing under the influence of other events? In this project, I shall try to address these questions and look at this event from the perspective of 'ordinary Americans'. Using the concept of the Other, I argue that the Americans' vision of the Cold War was based on concept of mutual understanding and similarity, and that their vision of Khrushchev was dualistic: they were gazing at him as at competitor and auditor at the same time. Narratives about the visit were changing under the influence of further events. Sovietologists were re-interpreting the past and reshaping the future.