Revisionism in Soviet History (original) (raw)

Uploaded (2023) | Journal: History and Theory

Abstract

This essay is an account of the "revisionism" movement of the 1970s and 1980s in Soviet history, analyzing its challenge to the totalitarian model in terms of kuhnian paradigm shift. The focus is on revisionism of the Stalin period, an area that was particularly highly charged by the passions of the cold War. These passions tended to obscure the fact that one of the main issues at stake was not ideological but purely disciplinary, namely a challenge by social historians to the dominance of political history. a similar challenge, this time against the dominance of social history on behalf of cultural history, was issued in the 1990s by "post-revisionists."although I was a participant in the battles of the 1970s, the essay is less a personal account than a case-based analysis of the way disciplinary orthodoxies in the social sciences and humanities are established and challenged, and why this happens when it does. In the case of Soviet history, I argue that new data and external events played a surprisingly small role, and generational change a large one. 1. For the account of my personal experiences as a revisionist, see Sheila Fitzpatrick, "Revisionism in Retrospect: a personal View," forthcoming in Slavic Review (2008).

FAQs

AI

What were the main characteristics of the revisionist challenge in Soviet history?add

The revisionist challenge, emerging in the 1970s, argued against the totalitarian model, emphasizing social support for the regime instead of viewing the Soviet state as purely oppressive. This paradigm shift transformed Sovietology from a political science domain to a more nuanced historical analysis, reflecting broader disciplinary changes.

How did the Cold War influence Soviet history scholarship during the 1970s?add

The Cold War politicized debates in Soviet history, with revisionists labeled as 'soft on communism' while totalitarians accused them of distorting facts for ideological reasons. This environment led to intense scholastic disputes that mirrored broader geopolitical tensions.

What impact did archival access in the 1990s have on the interpretation of Soviet history?add

Access to previously classified Soviet archives in the 1990s provided new data on repression; however, it did not fundamentally alter the revisionist paradigm. Instead, post-revisionists sought to incorporate cultural theory into historical narratives, reflecting changing disciplinary priorities rather than merely the availability of new information.

What distinguishes post-revisionism from earlier revisionist trends in Soviet history?add

Post-revisionism emerged in the 1990s as a response to earlier social history paradigms, emphasizing cultural constructs over social dynamics. Influenced by theorists like Stephen Kotkin and Michel Foucault, it focused on the nuances of ideology rather than straightforward narratives of oppression and support.

How did professional dynamics shape the evolution of Soviet history scholarship?add

Generational shifts influenced the acceptance of revisionist ideas, with older scholars retiring and younger historians revitalizing the field around the late 1980s. As a result, revisionist methodologies became institutionalized, transforming them from marginal concepts to mainstream historiographical approaches.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (9)

1. published as Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-1931, ed. Sheila Fitzpatrick (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University press, 1978). Note that not all the contributors would have identified them- selves as "revisionists," then or later.
2. See Sheila Fitzpatrick, Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, 1921-1934 (cambridge, Uk: cambridge University press, 1979), and idem, "Stalin and the Making of a New Elite" [1978], reprinted in Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia (Ithaca, NY: cornell University press, 1992).
3. See lynne Viola, Best Sons of the Fatherland:Workers in the Vanguard of Soviet Collectivization (New York: Oxford University press, 1987); Hiroaki kuromiya, Stalin's Industrial Revolution: Politics and Workers, 1928-1932 (cambridge, Uk: cambridge University press, 1988);
4. William J. chase, Workers, Society, and the Soviet State: Labor and Life in Moscow, 1918-1929 (Urbana, Il: University of Illinois press, 1987);
5. lewis H. Siegelbaum, Stakhanovism and the Politics of Productivity 1935-1941 (cambridge, Uk: cambridge University press, 1988).
6. See J. arch getty, The Origin of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered 1933-1938 (cambridge, Uk: cambridge University press, 1985);
7. Roberta Manning, "government in the Soviet countryside in the Stalinist Thirties: The case of Belyi Raion in 197," in The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies #01 [198]. For a strong "unintended consequences" argument, see lynne Viola, "The campaign to Eliminate the kulak as a class, Winter, 1929-0: a Reevaluation of the legislation," Slavic Review 45: (1987), 50-524.
8. See leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed [197] (london: New park publications, 1967).
9. Donald Filtzer, Soviet Workers and Stalinist Industrialization, 1928-1941 (armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1986); Moshe lewin, The Making of the Soviet System (New York: pantheon Books, 1985). Note that, while Marxist revisionists were generally uneasy with the argument about working- class upward mobility, their picture of the oppression of workers in situ was not inconsistent with the idea that upward-mobility workers could consider themselves Stalin's beneficiaries. 19. a collective revisionist effort in this direction was Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, ed. J. arch getty and Roberta Manning (New York: cambridge University press, 1994).