Sheila Fitzpatrick, Revisionism In Retrospect: A Personal View

Revisionism in Retrospect: A Personal View Author(s): Sheila Fitzpatrick Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 682-704 Published by: {aaass} Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27652945 Accessed: 25-04-2015 13:05 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27652945?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Slavic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DISCUSSION

Revisionism Sheila

A Personal

in Retrospect:

View

Fitzpatrick

heat and sometimes light, but Every field has its controversies, generating case not is it them. In the of the 1970s revisionism rehashing always worth I think rehashing isworthwhile there are lessons that because controversy, to re the Soviet history field can learn from it. In the first place, it is useful a younger mind the Cold how nasty the field could be during generation so that War In the second their blessings. certain they may count place, were cut off as a result of the lines of revisionist nastiness, inquiry political to suggest what I and I want have gone. they were and where they might more that will also argue of what used to be called there is "revisionism" around than the new generation it realizes, goes under probably though new labels. as a trend in I will give my assessment of revisionism Finally, Soviet historiography and what it accomplished. This is a participant's but of course I do not speak for all par account, In I and mainly about my particular fact, ticipants. speak only for myself corner of the the social history of Stalinist Russia. scholarly world, namely, That areas of revisionist largely leaves out important scholarship?1917, the New Economic and of the 1930s?on the politics which (NEP), Policy are better others to qualified To

me,

the

revisionists'

are

views

so

and

comment,

outlandish

focuses

more

on

the onginal 1970s cohort that I wonder what makes them see thepast the way to of I be which revisionists, th do on those who than longed, Peter Kenez, "Stalinism as Humdrum Politics," p in the In followed 1980s Russian Review 45, no. 4 (October 1986) :400 X this essayj j writing pondered for a long time how to deal with antirevisionist are criticism and polemics: they part of the obviously were in that of the climate in which revisionists story, part they operated, but equally obviously their perspective is not mine, to and I did not want a in rebuttal. My solution to insert has been get tangled up point-by-point and comments in boxes the narrative representative critiques throughout and

With

leave

thanks

to draw

readers

to

Viola,

Lynne

Arch

their

Getty,

own

conclusions.1

and Jerry

Hough

for

their

helpful

comments

and

criticisms. 1. The boxed is a dispro because are, in fact, not fully representative there critiques on those from to the last fifteen deficiencies portionate emphasis twenty years, reflecting in my is that the late 1970s was a personal My memory record-keeping. (unrepresented) on and rumors time for attacks bad about but also that not all of revisionists, particularly

Slavic

Review

67,

no.

3

(Fall

2008)

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in Retrospect:

Revisionism

683

View

a Revisionist

I Became

How

A Personal

revision in Soviet history meant of the totalitarian Revisionism model, stu I started on all on my own as a graduate and that was something in literature the the American dent, library of Sovietological reading from educa I had taken St. Antony's Oxford. my undergraduate College, a dislike of the models sci that then fascinated tion in Melbourne political and that the historian's entists, having response they oversimplified typical to the totalitarian I thought the suggestion distorted. With model, regard a control that could absurd any political society?not just repress regime in a desired direction, it, but successfully anticipat plan its development model actions?as the totalitarian of political ing all the consequences value-laden model I the totalitarian also found tremendously suggested. to be that the historian offended in a Cold War way, which my belief ought as a it both in Melbourne Trained historian, primary-source nonpartisan. to find scholars working with so narrow a source base and being ered me so credulous about rumors and legends (as long as they were anti-Soviet). if looked that To me it seemed obvious you only at Pravda and Iosif Stalin's was controlled from that the form Works you would everything impression source I was base. the of an was automatic for this the top, consequence not I then did that this the also struck by way (though picture "top-down" of Soviet to the official seemed have that terminology) picture reproduce a evaluation and control total party omniscience, positive just replacing one. with a negative I had lots of things on which but there were Those were my postulates, of Stalin's the a for personal degree open mind, example, comparatively "the Politburo," was to use "the regime," convention power. The current of all subdivisions and to collapse and "Stalin" interchangeably (branches was and this believed a I whole. into and against single party government) a more without contribution to work out Stalin's personal it impossible sense of who the "they" that did things were. Nor did I originally concrete I just sense of what might be going on at the grassroots; have any precise for to to With be had there support popular regard something. thought on terror survived me to that the it seemed Stalinism, regime unlikely I the regime, who did not, and why, was what but who alone, supported out. to find not and wanted know did for two specific puz turned out to be helpful A revisionist perspective first was cultural The from dissertation.2 that issues my emerged zling on the late in research I a encountered revolution, my phenomenon the same to because of attention 1920s and paid particular something At that of China. in the name was currently Republic People's occurring or a of was no scholarly there phenomenon general recognition point at the a series of repressive actions of event called cultural revolution, just these

were

2. rsky"

published. to confirm

seem

1980s

S. M. (PhD

boxed

comments

by Daniel

Field

and

Tom

from

Gleason

this.

"The Commissariat (Sheila Fitzpatrick), Oxford 1969). University,

Bruce diss.,

The

of Education

under

Lunacha

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the

684

Slavic Review

end

of

the

different cultural and scholarly From groups. against aware was was was I and interviews involved that what my more than of lots differ down" complex simple politics "top repression: ent and groups were pushing In other words, people agendas. competing I was to see a "from below" "below" in this beginning pattern?though context was rather than the absolute (below comparative top, rather than at so a was the term was the bit I also develop bottom), right misleading. sense the were that the odds stacked the "good ing depressing against that communist intellectuals like Anatolii Lunacharskii and Na is, guys," to dezhda who tended recoil from and violence Krupskaia, revolutionary the ideal of popular was the cherished it and that enlightenment, tough, anti-intellectual in any in that was likely to prevail lower-class, position a different ternal party fight. That gave me idea of what (less benign) "worker" might mean in attitudinal terms than was current labor among not historians: class me as emo struck the Ressentiment, solidarity, driving tion of the party's side. "proletarian" The second issue was a mysterious thing called proletarskoe vydvizhe nie (proletarian I which in my work on promotion), kept encountering I really education this concept, with policy. struggled trying to initially work out whether the people were called "proletarian" actually working literature class, or whether (as the scholarly said) this was simply a syn I decided that at least part of the meaning onym for "party." Even when was of "proletarian" more I was (or, lower-class), working-class broadly, still uncertain what was going on. It was not until after I came to America in the early 1970s that I as an got the idea that proletarskoe vydvizhenie meant educational affirmative was a non action. The idea that this policy Marxist of the Marxist of rule way fulfilling promise proletarian (making workers and that masters), sense a of that ful was not a matter Revisionism meth promise just of historical was filled for the important odology. Its subtext was advocacy for the enduring " re of the Soviet legitimacy legitimacy, founded on "social mobility, of the Soviet in the gime, crystallized only regime (Fitzpatrick) or anticipation of eventual "so second half of the 1970s, as cialism with a human face" (Cohen). I was Education and finishing Martin New York Review 25 May Malia, of Books, Social Mobility? I was very 2000 taken with the neatness of this idea, which I (as well as revisionist as an anti-Marxist understood inter my Marxist colleagues) vention in the was a It me to when nonrevisionists historiography. surprise read this as a justification of Stalinism and the Soviet system. as a revisionist came from Steve Cohen, who noticed my My induction dissertation because of its atten book, The Commissariat of Enlightenment, tion to enlightenment on its focus rather than party, policies, government and its interest in bureaucratic conflicts and the variety of within opinion Soviet

3. bridge,

Sheila Eng.,

1920s research

Fitzpatrick, 1979).

Education

and Social Mobility

in the Soviet Union,

1921-1934

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(Cam

in Retrospect:

Revisionism

A Personal

685

View

a and the leadership.4 scientist, was one of the originators Cohen, political cue from a "revisionist" movement in his of taking Sovietology, organizers to the analysis relations of U.S.-Soviet the new "revisionist" approaches war. I to the Vietnam of him?as well stimulated thought by opposition as the separate of Marxist historians who became cohort Sovietological I encountered New Left, though Cohen tells later?as whom revisionists, me as far as he was concerned.5 His political this was wrong biography one of the first revisionist of Nikolai Bukharin, explicitly publications, as a more whom Cohen told the story of a "good" Bolshevik, presented an to Stalin, alternative that democratic and less bloodthirsty approach was in influenced de-Stalinization the Soviet Follow Union.6 strongly by in 1956, Soviet of Stalin selective denunciation ing Niki ta Khrushchev's were in search of a viable communist communist intellectuals past, be it and "original Bolshevism" "Leninist the revolution term), (Cohen's legal or Bukharin and the mixed of NEP.7 zakonnost'), economy ity" (leninskaia The de-Stalinizing Leninist Let revival was epitomized by Roy Medvedev's at into the the translated of and 1970s History Judge, English beginning read in the United States.8 widely Iwas not New Left The skeptical child of Australian Old Left parents, or any other kind of Left was the milieu but and not un familiar myself, to and I idea of liked Cohen's me, (which congenial revising Sovietology in my mind meant not it its from Cold War it to bias, rescuing recasting a suit another sci Cohen, political Jerry Hough?like agenda). political not New Left?was with revisionist but the interests, entist/Sovietologist on my other in influence his America.91 found article "The So early years The Commissariat Soviet Organization Fitzpatrick, of Enlightenment: of Education under Lunacharsky, October 1917-1921 1970). Eng., (Cambridge, to the author 5. E-mail from Cohen dated 17 March 2008. As Iwas still quite ignorant on to have too of American and had been focused the Soviet Union taken much politics 4.

and

of

notice the

Sheila

the Arts

the

accuracy

however, 6.

they

1960s of my were

Stephen

counterculture

and

student

of

revolution,

and

I certainly affiliation.

political ideological in my intellectual which is why important biography, F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik A Political Revolution: perceptions

do

not

vouch

for

or

Accurate I include

not, them.

Biography,

1888

1938 (New York, 1973). 7. Bukharin the

efforts

was

undertaken

still' proscribed by his widow

in and

the others

considerable interest Soviet economists among name: see Moshe Political Undercurrents Lewin,

Soviet

de-Stalinization and Union, despite to have him but there was rehabilitated, in the "NEP alternative" associated with his in Soviet Economic

Debates:

From

Bukharin

to

theModern

(Princeton, 1974). Reformers 8. Roy A. Medvedev, Let History The Origins Judge: In the west, Colleen the main (New York, 1971). Taylor

trans. Consequences of Stalinism, "Leninist revival" work was Moshe

and

an as a convert to Last Struggle, of the late Lenin interpretation presenting Last Struggle, ed. David and pluralism. Lenins and Lewin, Joravsky gradualism trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (New York, 1968). Georges Haupt, over in 1975 and divorced in 1984. The marriage 9. We married and the controversy Lewin's

Lenin's

democratic

a year before revision Is Ruled, of Fainsod's classic How Russia "revisionist" my also Jerry's was one for my and Social Mobility, of the reasons rise to Education controversial quick as a revisionist. Is See F. and Merle How the Soviet Union Fainsod, notoriety Jerry Hough the other way, It worked Governed too, as the boxed Mass., 1979). quotation (Cambridge, with Hough tarred by association from Martin Peretz with me. suggests, being

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

686

Slavic Review

viet Experience and the Measurement of Power" a complete eye-opener and still think it one of the best things ever written about Soviet politics.10 was much more in theoretical interested debate than Iwas and knew Hough about American much more what social who was Fainsods student and had science?though Hough, acolyte, at not he that did been designated to help prepare the new edition [of recognize was time America-cen how Fainsods How Russia Is Ruledy. But after his men it was in tric and value-laden tors death and his marriage to Sheila Fitzpatrick, an as to prin opposed practice, old-fashioned, old-left historian, Hough changed his that social views. ciple. Assuming "inter like science concepts in New Republic, 8 May Martin 1989 Peretz, est and "participa groups" as claimed, tion" were really, to American it he thought and not just specific universal democracy, use them to analyze the to would facilitate understanding comparative this was to get him into a lot of trouble. Soviet Union; on NEP

Revisionism

and

the

1930s

to the United asked me and Cohen In the fall of 1972, I came States, a at the forthcoming of the to convention in national panel participate on the via of Slavic Studies for the Advancement American Association to was an important issue for Cohen, who wanted bility of NEP.11 This and of Leninism contest the view that Stalinism was an inevitable product to cultural with respect this argument the revolution; my task was to make not yet know much the NEP period, but since my disser I about did policy. to 1921) had shown Vladimir and Lunacharskii Lenin tation research (up to be committed would work. As I I assumed this argument enlighteners, on the 1920s, however, to do research I started to have doubts. The began to me more it appeared that the "enlightenment" I read, the more poli was to that Lunacharskii cies on culture during NEP, trying implement were had generally and that Lenin enviable, proving actually approved, in intellectuals the of the from their many party lead support despite the Communist of "hard line" the because lower-class, majority ership, as I came to see them?disliked them.12 constituency, Party?Stalin's

F. Hough,

10. Jerry

"The

Soviet

and

Social 11.

of Texas

the Measurement

and

Experience

ofPolitics 37, no. 3 (August 1975): 685-710,

republished

203-21. Mass., 1977), (Cambridge, Theory on a one-year in the Slavic appointment a last-minute at Austin: it was fill-in invitation

Science I came

ofTower,"

Department that I accepted on to a I went

Journal

The Soviet Union

inJerry F.Hough, at

the University of curios

out

at the no firm to stay in the United States. intention fellowship at at Columbia in un tenured in New York Institute and remained Russian (then) positions six years before St. John's University and Columbia for about my first tenured posi getting at the University this time in the history of Texas tion (by coincidence, department) again, ity, with

in 1980. 12. This and

was

Its Enemies:

the argument Cultural

Soviet

I made

in my

Policy,

1922-1927,"

AAASS

"The paper, Slavic Review

on

'Soft' Line 33,

no.

2

(June

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Culture 1974):

Revisionism

I was

not

in Retrospect:

A Personal

I saw as an

which

this conclusion,

with was.

displeased but Cohen

687

View

interesting

discovery, on at the Bellagio conference became Our disagreements sharper out turned in 1974, at which my effort at reconceptualization Stalinism to be quite different from what the organizers and Co (Robert C. Tucker the that ortho in view conference had mind. hen) paper, contesting My and the in various cultural fields were dictated doxies party leadership by came from within the that instead concerned, professions they proposing was and I, for my part, was very critical of Cohen's criticized; argu heavily ments Leninism and Stalinism and the for a sharp discontinuity between Af of "original Bolshevism."13 democratic sense) potential (in a western a wrote ter the Bellagio Leszek Kolakowski conference, (also participant) for the first time raising the issues his satire on revisionist Sovietologists, and the of moral judgment Na Nazi the ("if analogy zis had won, we would have had a revisionist scholarship out Hitler's good pointing I liked Kolakowski sides").14

are ad-

all the recent trends in history-writing

Not

. . . Some

mirable.

historians

younger

of the Stalinist

what emphasize or otherwise ing

social

they

and

institutional

% \

1930s, for example, tend to \ to have

consider

progressive

been moderniz. . . , while

developments

\ \

and thought the satire funny minimizing or obscuring the colossal human tragedies f at the time this line ; . . . It is too (later, to losses. whether and material early judge * to of criticism started this trend in the new derives pall): unfortunate scholarship I took it to be di < an overreaction to the coldzeal although from revelatory of not it did rected me, war Sovietology, the highly focused nature of social l against seem relevant to what I was or an unstated to !: historical desire research, political I had not yet era. 'f: rehabilitate the entire Stalin doing. actually that lost my innocent belief F. Cohen, the Soviet Experience $ Stephen Rethinking for historians (Kolakowski 33 \ York, (New 1985), was a after all, philosopher, and Tucker and Cohen po it was self-evident that the historian's task was to under litical scientists) or bear witness evil. The of all this stand, not to prosecute against upshot was that I withdrew was the from the This volume.15 my Bellagio piece at which Cohen I I intellectual he was and company: thought parted point as "The Soft Line on Culture reprinted Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary F. Cohen, 13. See Stephen "Bolshevism

and

267-87, Cultural

Stalinism: 14.

inHistorical Essays "New York Times:

lakowski," (London) Survey comes reassessment the new years

after

the German

enormously gained best-tested signs of him we are left with 15. A

Stalin:

(Ithaca,

in Sheila

victory

in World . . .Who

version Slavic Stalin,"

. As . cold-war of my Review

War can

inter alia, II, noting that demographic deny

for Mr Hitler

himself, "

propaganda! first appeared paper 35,

in Fitzpatrick,

no.

2

(June Cultural

1976): Front.

The

Fitzpatrick,

1992). in Robert

and C. Tucker, Stalinism," 3-29. (New York, 1977), Interpretation Editorial of May 8, 1975: A Variation by Leszek Imagined The "editorial" 87-89. 21, no. 4 (Autumn 1975): spoof and more sides" of Nazism of the "brighter positive

in mobility. social progress?. after years of

revised slightly A Reappraisal," under tural Orthodoxies

der

Its Enemies,"

Russia

what

how

"the

mobility a simplified

as "Culture 211-31,

and and

ed., Ko wel thirty

Europeans is one of the image

of

Politics

un

as

"Cul

then

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

688

Slavic Review

I was whitewashing and he thought whitewashing "original Bolshevism," Stalinism.16 was was not the to dislike Cohen the way my scholarship only person ran I serious two into first trouble of lines The with of my going. thought. a concerned of my "soft line" argument cultural revolution, development on NEP that showed, to be triumphant, in effect, the "hard" line in culture not just because of enthusiasm of support from above, but also because on the from from below doubt above" assump (implicitly "only casting tions of the totalitarian model) ,17The second was on working-class upward which was partly the result of state "affirmative action" programs, mobility, I discussed which in the context and treated as a of Soviet elite formation source

a class of beneficiaries, the it created of regime because legitimacy we (no doubt annoy Both these ideas irritated those whom vydvizhentsy.18 "traditional" anyone who was not a meaning Sovietologists, ingly) called and the latter ag revisionist; Marxist revisionists . . . are?or | gravated some and of her colleagues Fitzpatrick as since ? well, they preferred were?distinctly people of the Left. Involved in the as class of workers beneath the I to think criticism their work?almost always of rather conscious ; amount animus been a certain proletarians of left surface?has as to climb than overfrom the wars of the 1960s. f eager people out In class. of their I fact, it is Abbott Totalitarianism Gleason, (NewYork, 1995), to of think difficult : anyone 267 ideas about did like my I who in the late the vydvizhentsy unknown of Robert V with the 1970s, (Bill) Daniels, personally exception he to me when and astonishment then: I still remember my gratitude to tell me so. wrote out of the blue from Vermont in American Soviet studies revisionism of Marxist (as the of revisionism and 1917 others Ronald by Grigor Suny represented for me: for some years after my arrival cohort) was an oddly late discovery I thought in the United States talked about Marxist that, when people smear me was in it revisionists that just a Cold War category), (including in terms of my ignorance of American tactic. (This can only be explained not to graduate school here, and my curious de academia, gone having like the related is now called "the sixties.") Marxism, tachment from what see was a issue of left-wing for and me, looking back, I problem politics, a as a context Left in it. Growing Old child of the how badly I handled up was in me the belief that it had instilled that affiliation where unpopular The

existence

16. (New along

Stephen York, 1985), with George

17.

See

Sheila

1978), particularly the genesis of this

and History since 1917 Politics the Soviet Experience: Rethinking me as the main note identifies offender, (170) accompanying and Hough. Getty, Yaney, Arch in Russia, 1928-1931 ed., Cultural Revolution (Bloomington, Fitzpatrick, as Class War." On and the article "Cultural Revolution introduction my

F. Cohen, 33. The

idea,

see

no. 2 (April 1999): 202-9. 18.

Fitzpatrick,

"Cultural

Revolution

Education and Social Mobility, and Fitzpatrick, Slavic Review 1928-1939," 38, no. 3 (September Cultural Front. patrick,

Elite,

Revisited," "Stalin

1979):

and 377-402,

Russian the Making reprinted

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Review of

58,

a New in Fitz

Revisionism

in Retrospect:

A Personal

689

View

was

or left to make and cowardly of Marxist contemptible public denial or one as not whether had them it would have been wing sympathies, (just to deny if of the had instead been that, Left, my tribe). So being Jewish me of or leftist, it was a matter a Marxist when accused of people being me not to even to not with I did consider be pride deny it, though myself on both sides of the to either. This was confusing fence.19 people political For those on the Left, there was the puzzle of why, if Iwas on the Left too, I kept disagreeing with them?and with a sharpness so, moreover, doing arose from my at being misclassified. resentment that no doubt private The sharpness was in evidence in the 1988 exchange in Slavic Review about "The Bolsheviks' when that I had article, Dilemma," my Suny protested on a I ac crusade" Marxist class while gone analysis, "personal against cused him of having blinkers.20 ideological were in the first half of the still an embattled Revisionists minority the emergence of younger of a new cohort social and po 1980s, despite and Arch litical historians Viola and tempers were Lynne Getty, including was an interest in investi short. One of the things that united revisionists "from for the and this below" interest support regime; gating underlying once was the our that such identified, support, might change expectation the 1930s of of the Great (collectivization, key episodes understanding I had and indeed of the whole of Stalinism. political dynamics Purges), own at the found such support with satisfaction, (to my least) vydvizhentsy as the 1917 revisionists of cultural and the activists had revolution, just to workers In both and the Bolshevik revolution. these done with regard have been driving the cases, it looked as if "from below" radicalism might we But than otherwise have when further gone. they might politicians to collectivization that hypothesis did not and the Great Purges, turned some urban seem to work. To be sure, Viola identified sup working-class and found that lower levels of the party apparat port for collectivization more was com were radical sometimes than the Politburo,21 but nobody which evidence of with peasant support, surely would ing up significant to any if collectivization de had been have been a key factor significant same was a true of The the Great "from below" initiative.22 gree Purges, to to Richard to whom I have In this connection, belatedly apologize Pipes, as an "activist for not in London of the New introduced in the 1970s Left,"

19.

jokingly of disinformation. this piece recting in Fitzpatrick, 20. Reprinted comments and from with Suny Slavic

47', no.

Review

4

Cultural Daniel 1988):

(Winter

Front.

Orlovsky 599-626

I was cor

of the article, original publication a response in from me, appeared on 614, mine comment (Suny's quoted

The

and

on 624). Best Sons of the Fatherland: Viola, Lynne "The Campaign 1987); Viola, (New York, A R??valuation of the Legislation," 1929-30: 21.

tion

and

"'L'ivresse

Viola,

de

campagnes 75-101. 22. power doxical tended

This in the

de

de

collectivization was

solution

cadres

l'agriculture,"

in the Vanguard the Kulak

to Eliminate Slavic

of Soviet Collectiviza as a Class, Winter,

503-24; 45, no. 3 (Fall 1987): durant les le pouvoir sovi?tique 1 (1992): des ?tudes slaves 64, no.

Review

russes Revue

et

were identified with Soviet who peasants certainly came up with I finally the para for many this years, pondering was "Soviet-minded" collectivization that, once young peasants underway, of the new job opportunities because the village up in the towns: opening

1920s.

to leave

Les

succ?s':

Workers

puzzling, After

as

there

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

690

Slavic Review

at had demonstrated Getty and Roberta Manning disorganization the lower levels of government and in the party, but none of us had found a real social or even a for this phenomena explanation good hypothesis of what such an explanation Iwas frustrated look like.23 by this situ might on own to the "big" make ation, particularly any headway by my inability to get of via Stalinism the "from below" questions Impatient approach. on with once out I fellow of with found new, step something again myself revisionists. far out of step was evident in the debate How that followed publica on Stalinism," tion of my article "New Perspectives solicited by the ed itor of Russian of Review and published in 1986.24 Most (Daniel Field) the article was harmless forth how about my enough, setting thoughts we might a social of the Stalin period, but it history approach writing statement from had its provocative the far side, including that, opening a on I manifesto behalf of the "New Cohort" of social historians, writing was future directions ideas about with which would offering they prob and the concluding that, since the section, which ably disagree, argued new social a new of had not generated history understanding radically we would now do better to concen the political dynamics of Stalinism, trate on classic social history issues such as mobility, and stratification, a new conflict in the of of social with group up hope coming picture where

dynamics. Russian

four commentaries the article published along with Alfred Geoff Peter and that as Cohen, Kenez) (by Stephen Meyer, Ely, sailed me, as I felt, from every possible I replied with a ringing direction. to iconoclasm declaration of my commitment both and "so-called objec or meant not tive scholarship," I which by skewing my data for political measure reasons. For Cohen's assertion that (irritated by ideological good a "'New Cohort' I was writing I manifesto," denial), despite my explicit Review

see

sotsial'noi the early kollektivizatsii" (from "Vopros podderzhki istoriia XX veka, ekonomicheskaia, Pivovar, ed., Otechestvennaia sotsial'naia V. Z. Drobizheva zhizr?: Vpamiati version (Moscow, 2004) (an English in preparation for Russian russe). History/Historie 23. See J. Arch Getty, The Soviet Communist Origins of the Great Purges: Party Fitzpatrick, in Efim lished

1933-1938

(Cambridge,

Eng.,

1985);

and

T. Manning,

Roberta

Government

1990s),

Reconsidered, in the Soviet

Countryside in the Stalinist Thirties: The Case of Belyi Raion in 1937 (Pittsburgh, own

was

research

Schadenfreude) factor. Fitzpatrick,

of evidence producing to the downfall of bosses

some

positive in the purges,

response popular but I did not see

pub

politicheskaia is currently

1984). My

(in the form of this as a causal

"Workers on Labor Bosses: The of the Great against Purges Impact in Ronald G. Suny and Lewis Work Relations," eds., Making Management Siegelbaum, ers Soviet: Power, and Identity Class "How the Mice Buried the (Ithaca, 1994); Fitzpatrick, Cat: Scenes from the Great of 1937 in the Russian Russian Review Provinces," 52, Purges no. 3 in the Russian and Ressentiment 299-320; 1993): (July Fitzpatrick, "Vengeance French Historical Studies I had not yet become 579-88. Revolution," 24, no. 4 (Fall 2001): in denunciation, was interested which later the subject of Fitzpatrick and Robert Gellately, Practices: in Modern Denunciation 1789-1989 eds., Accusatory European History, (Chicago, a "from below" that certainly terror the impact of "from above" 1997), input magnified and

influenced 24.

tober

Sheila

1986):

the

selection

Fitzpatrick, 357-73.

of victims

and

"New Perspectives

definition on

of

Stalinism,"

targets. Russian

Review

45,

no.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4

(Oc

Revisionism

in Retrospect:

A Personal

View

691

some rather added revisionists, that, gratuitous slaps at fellow asserting "I did not like the totalitarian-model while that I saw in Ameri orthodoxy can Soviet studies fifteen not have liked it any better Iwould years ago,... . . . seen had it been a Marxist and that, having orthodoxy," "lately signs of a revisionist on my work, based orthodoxy, partly gaining ground with the I do not much like it either."25 younger generation, Not surprisingly, this pro duced from angry responses Some of this trash seems incredible now, but in the and other Viola, theUniversity Manning, 1980s, according to theNew Republic, as "new cohort" members s Sheila the Stalin era s of Chicago Fitzpatrick praised " that, if they belonged social serting "high mobility. to any school, it certainly was 1998 Times, 6 October Washington not mine. A sense of be came trayal through clearly in this exchange, a decade to remark unkindly Kotkin prompting Stephen later that I had led the revisionists into the wilderness and abandoned them there.27 Of course, I felt somewhat self, with

abandoned / ignore their work. How do you fight people who deny my the young revision theHolocaust? Its like somebody who believes the ists joining else in earth isflat. everyone for some up on me; beating Richard in Forward, 9 October Pipes, quoted reason I did not see how hefty 1998 a I had offered provocation in my "Afterword." Perhaps, for a self-proclaimed in too, I was a little priggish, iconoclast, especially me. claim to be following led (Not my righteous my data wherever they . . .) that I am taking it back Cold War Attacks the 1980s, I was dissatisfied with my own and other people's through in understanding the Great The political progress Purges. background noise on this topic was so overwhelming that it severely inhibited thought. to ad On clamor for revisionists the one hand, there was the constant

All

no matter area of their particular the question of the purges, what on the assumption that this was the only important (permis there was the inadequacy of the available sible?) topic. On the other hand, to sources for a historian of my type (both attached and sources, which was in repeating uninterested had already dis what other people said) was even more was not for new It clamor that the couraging. discouraging dress

research,

Russian Review "Afterword: Revisionism Revisited," 45, Fitzpatrick, 412. 1986): more Bill Chase, Robert Arch Brower, (from Daniel responses Conquest, Hiroaki Roberta Alec Nove, Gabor Kuromiya, Rittersporn, Getty, Jerry Hough, Manning, or less all more of my original C. Tucker, and Lynne almost critical Robert Viola), sharply in Russian Review from left or right, were article 46, no. 4 (October 1987). published "1991 and the Russian Revolution: 27. Stephen Kotkin, Sources, Conceptual Catego 386. 70, no. 2 (June ries, Analytical Frameworks, 1998): History "Journal ofModern 25.

no.

4

Sheila

(October 26. Eleven

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

692

Slavic Review

research and new ideas but rather for endorsement by revisionists public of the conventional view that the purges were a bad thing and that Stalin and the Soviet system were that for them. I agreed, of course, responsible no doubt the purges were a bad was and that "the responsi system" thing a bit like a ble for them (though that sounded but I was at that tautology), on the time agnostic of Stalin's responsibility, the murkiness degree given of the available to think and not I evidence. did like told what Also, being to work on and tended to react in a contrarian what manner.28 In the early 1980s, the pressure to discuss the purges at every public oc casion was so intense, and the likelihood of excited attacks from audience so great, that it seemed members almost pointless (if not other panelists) to have such discussions. in interest "self-criticism" Soviet My probably stems from these as samokritika American I regarded which experiences, and demanded self-abasement style. The ritual, like its Soviet counterpart, did not tolerate to were at. any attempt explain what you actually getting It did not even accommodate factual correction (I remember vainly trying to to Leon explain Wolfgang hard at Yale that an argument Several years ago, I heard Fitzpatrick present a paper he particularly disliked had on the incidence of the terror among the elite of the not by been made . . . I was Moscow in the late 1930s by Getty, city of surprised all revisionists, because and bewildered by thefury thepaper aroused in some me) like all Soviet members of the audience. I pondered the incident, Opposition the same ists, were essentially drawing on half-remembered gossip, and wondered of was, course, whether it was the reputation of the or ex the thing. Getty speaker the main of the attack the rather the than substance target audience, pectations of on the purges, and he bore her that had aroused such of presentation, passion. this with remarkable calm Daniel in no. Russian 4 (October Review Field, Ab, and humor. But my good 1986): v little study of telephone di as a data source on rectories losses produced howls of outrage later with bemusement purge (recalled Daniel I delivered it at Harvard in the late 1970s, and it Field) when by was fifteen I could publish it.29 years before In retrospect, I can see that this had as well as other costs. intellectual If I had not on the stood my of the "Cultural argument (later ground paper Bellagio under to consider on of the purges the impact Stalin"), pressure resisting culture was because the in the creation of orthodoxies, my subject input from professions Imight have noticed were necessary that the reason orthodoxies in the first place probably had to do with terror. something 28.

so

stubbornly Orthodoxies

as "The It finally on Soviet of the Great Elites: A Case appeared Impact Purges Moscow and of the 1930s," Directories in J. Arch Study Leningrad Telephone Getty and Roberta T. Terror: New Perspectives as Soviet eds., Stalinist (New York, 1993). Manning, well as American were to blame: the Harvard audience had criticized censorship practices the of my random as well as the conclusions and the idea of methodology sampling, doing such a study in the first went I but when to Moscow back and reordered the 1937 place, 29.

from

and

1939 Moscow

(the only the Lenin technique,

library

telephone that had

directories these

finally Library accepted the count out turned

in order

directories) my request almost exactly

to redo

the

the Lenin sampling, Library them. When, later, years provide and I was able to use the approved sampling the same.

refused

to

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Revisionism

in Retrospect:

A Personal

693

View

of the really One assertions work made about revisionist damaging of Holocaust the Great Purges was that it was the equivalent denial. I first encountered this view in a review of a book of mine . . . seems to Dr kind

on

(some

respect and affection from my time in England) and was aston ished: as far as I knew, none of the Sovietological revision ever even ists had thought of intervening in Holocaust a This became debates.30 ar common antirevisionist

denial). Stephen Wheatcroft took the brunt of this attack, whom with Hough, along "the called Robert Conquest David Irving of Stalinism."31 the revision As a group, an to were ists trying pioneer his the social into inquiry and tory of the Stalin period were interested particularly "from in impulses that came and affected below" politics at the top.32 In the 1970s and in 1980s, that meant mainly for social support vestigating

which

has

sent millions

of

innocent

women

men,

and

children to die by execution or in a labour camp is to be accused of lack of impartiality. Does the same prin ciple apply toNazi Germany f Is themurder of six mil lionJews to be assessed in terms ofNational Socialist overall social policy, without hint of disapproval? in Times

Schapiro,

18March

Supplement,

Literary

1983

The lesson of theweek is to choose your dictator wisely What you say about Hitler in chilly Bavaria may put 1 you in a prison cell. But say the same thing about Stalin in sunny California and your reward, my boy, will be a comfortable tenure in Soviet studies. Robert

in Sunday

Harris

Times,

11 October

1998

a new pro Fitzpatrick, in describing the creation of letarian intelligentsia, isfond of characterizing the " process as "affirmative action, and comparing it to American social policy during the 1960s and 1970s. No

doubt

there are

some

similarities,

but

in

the gain

our understanding is more than offset by what the out its linking of situations that are in leaves phrase too disparate to be so simply compared. This compari son must Abbott

an

inevitably

have

Gleason,

"'Totalitarianism'

sian Review

43,

no.

2

(April

ring.

exculpatory

1984):

in 1984," 156.

was a little that a Paris-based less bizarre, in Europe the charge given of intellectual in fact, on the grounds Gabor did, revisionist, Rittersporn, Sovietological I to but did not know their deniers Holocaust of the defend views, freedom, express right that at the time. made Malia 17 January in New Republic, 31. Robert 1981, 32. Later, Martin Conquest Harris Robert in London, comment about Getty, the same (see box) preferred though of His Be the Midwife "Blood Rites: Must Violence with Le Pen. Malia, the analogy Always 2000. Times, 28 May tory?" Los Angeles a Social on this, see Ronald "Toward statement 32. For the programmatic Suny, Grigor : no. 1 31-52. Review American Historical 88, of the October (1983) Revolution," History 30.

con

by historians of Soviet reality with lack of objectivity. But things have come to a pretty pass if a historian who expresses any criticism of a r?gime

gument

bruited being high numbers to about was taken as a wish or minimize (hence, deny with Holocaust the analogy

of

demnation

Leonard

smear), (or par in connection with ticularly the around the controversy in of Stalin's victims, number the about which skepticism

any

equate

Fitzpatrick

by Leonard Schapiro one for whom I had

Perhaps

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rus

694

Slavic Review

it the Bolsheviks; became later on evidence available), (when archival an as meant was understood The issue resistance. examining "support" to justify Stalinism, and looking back I can see more attempt clearly why no sense to me: I saw have thought this. At the time, itmade people might the critics simply as prejudiced or, at best, hidebound by convention. a lot of criticism because of the received My upward mobility argument were to be that those who believed themselves suggestion upwardly mobile source were of the revolution beneficiaries and Stalin and thus loyal. One was the erroneous of misunderstanding that if I wrote about assumption the vydvizhentsy and said they were the core of a new elite, then Imust ad mire them for all, were puzzled (my old Soviet friends, non-vydvizhentsy the same reason), and if I said the policy them was affirma that produced Imust admire tive action too. My use of terms that came from, that policy, were and to be restricted to, American (democratic) implicitly supposed a lot of distress, was I I when asked what society caused though supposed to call it occurred I when in a nondemocratic context, upward mobility never got an answer. Another that issue methodological acquired politi cal overtones had to do with to understand the For Viola, the best sons of thefatherland were not those seeking terms in which the world was who tried to resist the onslaught on the countryside understood by one's subjects. by the hordes of communist cadres. Stalins soldiers I considered this to be one of the are sons Russian the best storming countryside of the primary duties of a his thefatherland for her. others torian, whereas many Vladimir Revisionism and the Brovkin, "Stalinism, saw it as an unpardonable Problem of Conceptualisation: A Review Article," in utout comprendre, exercise Soviet Studies 40, no. 3 (July 1988): 504 c'est tout pardonner" Viola was another revisionist who was for this (see box), criticized use of Soviet for her heavily particularly in quotation in her book on the 25,000-ers, (albeit marks) terminology which was understood, not as an to convey a Soviet mindset, but attempt as an endorsement of it.33 When

I tell my

students about the viciousness of the political climate the Cold look It is pos War, Sovietology during they politely skeptical. sible that I exaggerate, a not it is I though retrospective exaggeration: I was stunned know and frightened the viciousness the all by through 1970s and quite a long way into the 1980s, and so were other revisionists who were its targets. No doubt my own reaction was all the keener because I was an to the a even United without card for a States, immigrant green number of years, let alone and without I was scared tenure; citizenship, of being denounced to the and Naturalization Service and Immigration kicked out. resonance for the current (This may have more generation if you imagine the situation of a young untenured immigrant specialist on the Middle East whose research is trying to make sense of terrorism.) The main persecutors were Martin Malia, of revisionists (our perception) in

33.

Viola,

Best

Sons

of the Fatherland.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Revisionism

in Retrospect:

A Personal

695

View

as very small and I saw myself and Conquest. powerless Pipes, as extremely to saw I and American and them, compared public opinion this almost uniformly anti-Soviet and anticommunist. percep Ironically, no doubt have been to do with tion would less strong if I had had more the New Left and the antiwar movement. the fight I see how differently however, Reading Pipes's autobiography, world could be understood side. For Pipes, the American from the other as he first encountered it in in a the 1940s was pro-Soviet [Revisionists] formed a party determined to impose and uninformed control on the teaching of modern Russian history. way; woolly, all through his career as a So was new to American I believe In a manner which he keptencounter the vietologist Bolshevism, history of life though familiar from at Harvard the ing such attitudes they strove and largely succeeded in monopolizing Then and elsewhere.34 chairs in that that along university ensuring profession, came the New Left Marx field across the country went to their adherents. This ist revisionists with their (in entailed ostracizing scholars known to hold different his view) moti views. ideologically Richard

anti-American,

vated,

pro

Richard

Soviet, pseudo-scholarship; and after a while, incredibly, to get they started good jobs,

Pipes,

(New Haven,

and dominate the scholarly debate. prosper, a cause saw America in this way, but it remains and I in his. could have lived in my America,

Impact

of Attacks

on Revisionist

Wixi:

Memoirs

of

a

Non-Belonger

2003), 222

I do not dispute to me. of wonder

that Pipes If only he

Work

and basi undeterred I saw myself my research pursuing to be ludicrously now appears to me This criticism. by at the beginning of the 1970s, I was I came to America for them and already had quite of ideas and enthusiasm came out. The of the attacks the work base; tumbling so much in the early 1980s I could that for a while late 1970s rattled me more not even do research, the latter condition let alone write; prevailed to I or less with the 1980s, great difficulty managed though throughout out I remember The Russian Revolution squeeze (ironically, my bestseller). Festschrift it was to get the Vera Dunham what a breakthrough piece writ new for the first to say something ten and see that I had actually managed a half-completed book I abandoned this period time in years.35 During one on another on social mobility in the 1920s and 1930s and dropped extensive archival for which I had done of industrialization, the politics For many years cally unaffected When inaccurate. full bumptiously a solid research

34. Belonger 35.

I am paraphrasing 2003). (New Haven,

his

autobiography:

and Life "Everyday Fitzpatrick, and Terry Sheldon eds., Thompson, revised S. Dunham Colo., 1988); (Boulder, Front. Cultural Fitzpatrick, ard

Richard

Pipes,

Vixi: Memoirs

of

a Non

in Rich in Stalin's Values' Russia," in Honor of Vera Society and Culture: Essays in Cultured" under the title "Becoming version

'Middleclass Soviet

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

696

Slavic Review

a decade as a fully one article.36 In short, I lost almost just nerve at the end of and the back 1980s, historian, functioning only got my a in personal when circumstances and a job move gave me a boost, change and Iwas able to follow the new line of thought that produced "Ascribing with

research,

Class."37

one rethink Criticism often makes one's work. But ad and improve as menacing hominum and vicious does criticism that the victims perceive not do that; it is more in to them and may also succeed paralyze likely revi off The them back and of abandon lines making dangerous inquiry. After Viola sionists' into social support are a good example. investigations had been burnt for the 25,000-ers, I for social mobility, and Alex Rabi and other for the Bolsheviks' 1917 revisionists sup working-class we was a to there natural fear the fire, however port, staunchly tendency not to. social This is in I fact that the how, pretended retrospect, explain as a line of more or less in its tracks after a few support inquiry stopped to revi initial publications. All sorts of avenues that had looked promising were not most sionists at the beginning the the being egregious pursued, of for urban the "enthusiasm" Soviet theme), (the support youth project all revisionists which talked about and none systematically investigated. the "burnt child fears the fire" syndrome in myself while (I first noticed in Stalinism the late 1990s and writing my Everyday involuntarily flinching even from the topic of youth enthusiasm, I believed it belonged though nowitch

the intelligentsia's for the regime, support investigated rate believe in the 1930s, though it was later ren existed a successful to dered PR the Soviet by intelligentsia campaign by at dissidence back into the looked past. Nobody project support, Jewish or even talked about it: this topic had to wait until the turn of the century for Yuri Slezkine.38 Nor did any revisionist, that then or later, ever suggest reserves the Soviet regime retained of urban working-class any support or in the "old" class after the taming of the trade unions, goodwill working I think this would to be the case up to end almost prove though certainly ever of the 1930s if anyone investigated.39

there.) which

Nobody I at any invisible

36. as

they article

Three were

finished when

chapters I left Columbia

of

the

social

in 1980.

The

the argument, "The Russian summarizing examination of the Question of Social Support

only thing Revolution for

still

book

mobility

the

I

Soviet

sit

in my files, exactly from this was an

published and Social Regime

A Re Mobility: in the 1920s and

1930s," Politics and Society 13 (January 1984): 119-41. On the politics of industrialization, see

Sheila

"Ordzhonikidze's Takeover of Vesenkha: A Case Fitzpatrick, Study Soviet Studies 37', no. 2 (April, 153-72. Politics," 1985): 37. Sheila of Social Class: The Construction Fitzpatrick, Identity "Ascribing 745-70. Russia," 65, no. 4 (December 1993): Journal ofModern History 38. Yuri The Jewish I do not mean Slezkine, (Princeton, 2004). Century

in Soviet

Bureaucratic

that

this

is a "revisionist"

as Slezkine approach, sense in the broader

has

never

so identified

himself

in Soviet to suggest or been so

But the conventional of of challenging wisdom perceived by others. the field, it was certainly revisionist. so 39. Although not Sarah Davies does her Leningrad letter data, interpret focusing on workers' resentment instead can be read as I think of elite privilege, the same data that at least some workers as "ours," confirmation to think of the Soviet continued regime

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Revisionism

in Retrospect:

A Personal

View

697

How unattractive to the "social support" line of inquiry had become revisionists secret became evident in the 1990s, when archives formerly and predictably of "secret" and "completely (since the function opened was to hide what secret" classifications did not want known) the regime revealed masses of data on different forms of resistance and opposition. as well as Revisionist social historians and Viola Jeff Ross myself, (notably on this mate man from the next generation) and Sarah Davies jumped reaction from "archive rats" but one that nevertheless rial, a predictable an element for line of inquiry of relief (finally, a good surely involved this was not .40Of course that could not be labeled pro-Soviet!) revisionists one. Discovery nor even a conscious of James C. Scott's the only motive, was a major and for me person work on resistance theoretical stimulus; at that I settled on for my book Stalin's Peasants frame ally, the resistance to the interpretive solution the end of the 1980s was a welcome problem me ever since I realized that the "victims and benefi that had perplexed collectivization I had initially approached with which ciaries" hypothesis to work. was not going were in as we old revisionists taking refuge just though, Ironically, War were the Cold With the times resistance studies, ending, changing. social have written could probably revisionists they liked about anything one could that Indeed adverse without argue support consequences.41 a did in his Magnetic Mountain, that is exactly what Kotkin programmati of Soviet values the acquisition that presented work cally ^osi-revisionist of the 1930s.42 It was a sign of as a than regime) (rather project popular as a Civilization: if could subtitle his work Stalinism the times that Kotkin never have to do that in the 1980s it would I or Getty or Viola had dared or, if by some fluke it readers) (that is, the publishers' got past the censor at a storm of outrage have provoked itwould that checkpoint, had passed a "civilization." Of course in calling Stalinism involved the whitewashing more than use of the term civilization was not whitewashing Kotkin's (any citizens Soviet that ours would but he was certainly have been), suggesting of the 1930s, not just the Soviet regime, had Soviet values, which was in ef social support ques answer to the revisionists' cultural fect an affirmative of this work and originality from the novelty tion. It does not detract (and in Stalins Russia: as they criticized it. Sarah Davies, Terror, Propaganda Opinion Popular 1934-1941 and Dissent, 1997). Eng., (Cambridge, Resistance Soviet Power and Popular with Stalinism: 40. See Lynne ed., Contending Viola, and Sur Resistance as Sheila Stalin's Peasants: as well in the 1930s 2002), (Ithaca, Fitzpatrick, Peasant Rebels ; Collectivization Viola, in the Russian York, vival 1994) (New Lynne Village after Resistance and the Culture 1996); Jeffrey Collectivization under Stalin: (New York, J. of Peasant on the Class and Revolution under Stalin: Worker Resistance (Cambridge, Rossman, Shop Floor even

Davies, 2005); Opinion. Popular to a much broader was now open of Soviet field I mean history by this that the true of to say that the same was is not ones?which revisionist of ideas, including range the excep with or even and political the intellectual which, weeklies, the American public on both sides of the antirevisionist remained Review tion of the London strongly of Books, and Conquest. to critics like Pipes, Malia, of place Atlantic, pride giving as a Civilization Stalinism Mountain: 1995). 42. Stephen Kotkin, (Berkeley, Magnetic

Mass.,

41.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

698 the with were away

Slavic Review

that followed it) to see the continuities was who the that it revisionism?despite paradox "post-revisionists" now beavered the for while revisionists argument making support,

"Stalinist

on

subjectivity"

work

resistance.

are There the revisionists' take and differences between important that of their successors: were the interested revisionists notably, primarily in society and behavior and the post-revisionists in discourse and subjec For was social it the if historians, existed, where, tivity. question support for the regime was located, can the assumption that populations being be broken into down classes and distin like cohorts groups meaningfully and so on. But if a (more or less univer guished by age, sex, nationality, is the focus of to sal) discourse study, there is no conceptual requirement further which of most this flu discourse segments specify society speak hazard the suggestion that the core ently and sincerely. That said, Iwould most of of the ur is work unmarried subject post-revisionist "subjectivity" ban youth, just as the core of to Stalinism be could said my Everyday subject be men urban women and with middle-aged family responsibilities.43

Concluding

Thoughts

was a Revisionism of challenge to conventional Young Turks' movement wisdom in the 1970s with its epicenter in North America and western Britain. It achieved would Europe, particularly say respectability?some the professional dominance?in field toward the end of the 1980s, par to its social In 1990s, it became ticularly with respect history component.44 less coherent as a movement, the because of the Soviet partly collapse Union and the of the archives the research environment opening changed and introduced new and partly for the normal demo scholarly agendas, reason: a new cohort of scholars came along, whose central graphic young interest was typically not social but cultural and intellectual history. It has been said that when conventional wisdom in a field is chal first say the new argument is wrong and then (if the chal lenged, people is successful) that it is because knows it. That is lenge boring everyone more or less what with or at least the revisionism, happened parts of it with which I was involved. In this I do particularly section, concluding not want to argue about whether was or revisionism because wrong, right that seems to me a to ask about any schol largely meaningless question trend. I would take it for that arly granted any particular angle of vision some enables (such as revisionism) into sharp focus while things to come others recede. The more to ask are what the making interesting questions the issues and processes that it illuminated. In angle was and what were 43. On my as homo oeconomicus, see Lan Out: subject Hellbeck, Jochen "Speaking of Affirmation and Dissent in Stalinist guages Kritika 1 (Winter Russia," 77 1, no. 2000): 78. If one thinks of Hellbeck's as young as and mine it is not implicit subject middle-aged that his turn out to be interested should in and the future while surprising people ideology are mine with for with economic in the present. preoccupied strategies coping hardship 44. But not in terms of see my article, discussion: "Revisionism in Soviet His public and 77-91. tory," History Theory 46, no. 4 (December 2007):

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in Retrospect:

Revisionism

A Personal

699

View

I will away move this final section, from told so far and try to assess the particular to the writing of Soviet history.

the highly personal story revisionism contribution

I have made

Power in the Soviet field in the 1950s and to power: itwas a zero-sum game, simple approach strikingly over the pop a system and exerted rulers in such monopolized something be of "from above/from historians' The ulation. revisionist dichotomy was also a simplification, character its low" was an advance, binary though "below" in the society about how far down and there was some ambiguity on American of Power" "Measurement article, drawing implied. Hough's in a to think about power was a pioneering social science attempt theory, In this and relational."45 as something manner "situational more complex of direct that "all citizens must have a modicum article, Hough postulated as antici rulers in certain situations or indirect influence else, (if nothing " While out of this.46 to work tried and their assessing ways reactions) pate of interest-group the then novel analysis, Hough approach supporting or "group mem of interests" has a multiplicity "that each person noted a that idea into a more idiom, or, to translate contemporary berships," of social identities.47 multiplicity of bu the notions into Soviet history introduced revisionists The center and institutional and interest and reaucratic groups professional at demonstrat successful and they were particularly conflict, periphery and profes levels of the administrative middle from hierarchy ing inputs of now called be would were to what alert sional groups.48 They questions of it. Follow into discussions to introduce best their did and rigor agency leader fail to match observation that, if outcomes regularly ing Hough's are that a at least is there preferences popular possibility ship intentions, inten of mismatches such were at revisionists involved, identifying good to be inference The tions and outcomes ("unintended consequences"). could there was "unintended where abounded, that drawn consequences" be no talk of "total" power. The

totalitarian 1960s, had a

Why

model,

at least as used

Things Happen

In the

1970s, more

plain why 45. 46. 47.

things

Hough, Ibid., Ibid., I am

felt that their task was to ex historians than at present, of ideologi were generally Revisionists skeptical happen.

"The

Soviet

Experience

and

the Measurement

of Power,"

204.

215. 210.

of the work also cite but one might work, from the R. Harris as that of James as well Solomon, Stalin under Soviet Criminal H. Peter Solomon, (Cambridge, Justice younger generation. in Social Science, Debate: A Controversy The Soviet Agrarian Solomon, ; Susan Gross 1996) Eng., and The Great Urals: Regionalism R. Harris, and James 1923-1929 Colo., 1977); (Boulder, the Evolution 1999). of the Soviet System (Ithaca, 48.

Peter

H.

thinking and Solomon

particularly Susan Gross

of Viola's

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

700

Slavic Review

cal explanations, the simple view of ideology (dominant against reacting from in the scholarship derived of the day) as a body of codified doctrine on a This texts and imposed canonical the regime passive population. by to the way no importance that revisionists did not mean attached people to invoke the concept think: for that, following Tucker's lead, they tended of political culture.49 But this was never a major revisionist preoccupation: more was to devoted causal energy explanations debunking accepted from "Marxist-Leninist and proposing alternatives, springing ideology" or group to regime often various kinds of contingency (in relation policy) to and individual to self-interest the desire advance oneself, (for example, a to make avoid trouble, living). Marxist of why things in involve analyses generally happen changes the economic base or the patterns of class domination. In a Sovietologi cal revisionist the second was more than the first, and context, important the Marxist to Trotskyism framework closer invoked was much usually than to Stalinism, to a Lev Trotskii's idea of notably ruling bureaucracy as a "new class"). Modernization was also an im (recast by Milovan Djilas revisionist in terms of American formulated framework, portant usually social science, rather than Marxism. This meant that the Soviet assuming was a Union in certain processes observed since the participant globally industrial revolution: movement to town, from countryside population as the man for many fertility and death rates, upward mobility decreasing sector expanded, and increasing agerial and white-collar literacy and edu cation. The much-invoked was not image of "backwardness" incompatible with the modernization but simply meant that Russia's premise position on the continuum of modernizing nations was relatively low. Revisionists saw as this was understood in the socialism," generally "building concept as a form of Stalin period, modernization. state-sponsored Political

Agendas

As

revisionists the field of two perceived they were entering, scholarship kinds of political bias and two different one political agendas prevailed, on each side of the iron curtain. In the west, the reigning ideology was Cold War anti-Sovietism and the agenda was to show the evil of the So viet system. In the Soviet Union, the reigning ideology was the Marxist Leninist of version the agenda to show that the Hurrah-patriotism, being Soviet Communist had always been Party and government right and on the side of the revisionists were highly critical history. Not surprisingly, of both these biases, which led them to take a strong in favor of position was not then the issue it has "objectivity." Scholarly objectivity problematic 49.

See Robert

C. Tucker, Political and Communist "Culture, Politi Culture, Society," : 173 -90; Tucker, 88, no. 2 (June Political Culture and in 1973) Quarterly Leadership Soviet Russia from Lenin to Gorbachev ;Stephen Political and (New York, Culture 1987) White, Soviet Politics (New York, Culture and Communist 1979); Archie Brown, Studies ed., Political cal Science

(Armonk,

N.Y,

1985).

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in Retrospect:

Revisionism

A Personal

701

View

in the 1970s and 1980s, most historians still have ac would even as of the cardinal toward it, they agreed striving cepted importance that it was an unattainable goal. own of The bias has been a leitmotif issue of the revisionists' political was criticism from the Right. New Left Marxist (anti-Vietnam) thinking in general, historians but in that generation indeed present of American unlike So the issue is not personal affiliation (which Americans, political are bias of the to free but viet citizens, work, choose) political supposedly seems weaker. revisionists Social history and there the evidence pointed to that may in 1917, a conclusion support for the Bolsheviks working-class the based on solid data. On their biases but was nevertheless have fitted one of the of Marxist revisionist Stalin period, scholarship peculiarities was that, if it had a bias, it was in an anti-Soviet direction (the Trotksky become:

since

and power had been the revolution by hijacked betrayed was the focus on So "new class") .50 Its other peculiarity a phoney class-differentiation of the peasantry viet mistreatment through an has to conclude One of kulaks.51 class scheme that created imaginary a ter to the Soviet whitewash if revisionists wanted that, they did regime, rible job of it.52 ite idea that a bureaucratic

Sources archives.53 On the face sources, especially this particular have would that historians in Back shows otherwise. the Soviet field So his massive History Carr was writing of use of Soviet published materi extensive for slighting had done before him, he was often criticized als than anyone the accusa the subtext being sources like ?migr? memoirs, oppositional than rather the of to version victors' the he that tion story give preferred to the possible were similar objections There that of the vanquished.54 to western available use of Soviet should future archives, they become some of the historians since not were Carr's in scholars time), (as they and falsified been massively have would assumed older generation they the made disinformation. therefore however, would (Others, only provide were always big on Revisionists seem self-evident of it, it may of but the experience passion, the 1950s and 1960s, when E. H. a much more viet Russia, making

50. 1928-1941 51.

Donald for example, Filtzer, N.Y., 1986). (Armonk, and Peasants Moshe Russian Lewin,

the

from

See,

French

by

Irene

Political

Times

my

lack

of

consistency

Workers

Soviet

Power: Teodor

Nove

Sociology of Peasantry a similar 52. Malia made

about

Soviet

(Evanston,1968); in a Developing Society: in his extended point

in furthering 15 June 2001.

what

Russia critical he

and A

Stalinist

Study Shanin, 1910-1925 essay

imagined

Industrialization,

of Collectivization, The Awkward (Oxford,

trans, Class;

A

1972).

on my work, complaining to be my political agenda:

Literary Supplement, to Sources on Guide and Lynne 53. See, e.g., Sheila eds., A Researcher's Viola, Fitzpatrick What Is a School? "Roundtable: and in the 1930s Soviet Social History N.Y., 1990); (Armonk, : 229-41. 24 (2007) Acta Slavica of Soviet History?" a School Is There Iaponica Fitzpatrick 14 vols. Soviet 1950-78); 54. See E. H. Carr, A History Russia, (London, Jonathan of The Vices of Integrity: E. H 140, 145, 196-204. 1999), Carr, 1892-1982 (London, Haslam,

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

702

Slavic Review

argument, opposite namely vented Soviet history being The

seems

message

them.

As

portant essays

for

how

questions are couched

to be: and must in

that a

field

legitimate

the documents

exist; to

why?answers be sought the language

lack of access

the

these

elsewhere.

Curiously, that followed some shared

use im The

of unrepentant

. . .

positivism Stephen Sources Sheila

review

Kotkin, on Soviet

Social and

Fitzpatrick

Slavonic

Papers

34,

nos.

of History

Researchers' in

the

Viola, Lynne 1-2 (March-June

to

Guide 1930s,

ed.

Canadian

to Soviet

archives

pre

of scholarship.) cohort the the revisionists of this skepti

cism about archives. Kotkin, in the for example, warned too much 1990s against early over the opening excitement "Not all docu of archives: ments have been preserved, were and far from all matters

1992):

to paper. Even committed ar access to the presidential chives will not solve certain to know about of Stalin's rule. But how much more do we need puzzles machinations? No documents reveal that the will high-level suddenly were USSR was a parliamentary In abundant there any case, democracy." sources un that provide "on a local level a record sometimes published not matched the It to did do in archives.55 be eclectic one's by approach to sources, in his view. A distrust was of "archival fetishism" into the profession just coming with discourse in local issues and, addition, along analysis, interpretive were at stake. The use of those archival sources, promiscuous especially that had been classified until disturbed Hellbeck 1991, because, Jochen as he these sources to privilege to rather tended resistance explained, than acceptance of Soviet values, the latter being his central scholarly interest. NKVD were the (svodki) but, in reports quintessential example, "the sources of classified from general, although outpouring previously on mass Soviet archives cases has shed ample of dissatisfac light popular ... we should tion with the policies of the Soviet regime that keep in mind on much however be based hard archival editions, documentary they may are in emphasis."56 evidence, always selective us back to the old This brings sources that official Soviet warning tell the wrong would this time with the twist that story?but intriguing the story they would tell would be too anti-Soviet I am not persuaded that promiscuity with sources a virtue. The more is a vice and monogamy the merrier, in my view; and if you find the sources are telling the wrong it is worth not whether and story, you, always considering they, may be to the or evidence.57 the revisionists trying rig Rightly wrongly, thought that the field of Sovietology had lost the connection to the data that keeps 166

55.

"1991 and the Russian 392. Kotkin, Revolution," 71. There is an unexplained shift in referent from Hellbeck, Out," "Speaking to "archives" he has in mind like Vitalii editions," "documentary by which "martyrologies" v arkhivakh KGB (Moscow, 1995). Shentalinsky's Raby svobody literaturnykh not to 57. Which is a that Hellbeck made about the tendency of clas deny good point sified to tell the anti-Soviet NKVD that his warning archives, svodki, especially story, and about the need for caution in using them was sensible. 56.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in Retrospect:

Revisionism

A Personal

703

View

on off track. In the 1980s, the revisionists' things from going emphasis a strategy for honest the field archives was, among other things, keeping of Soviet histo it), like the contemporaneous emphasis (de-ideologizing reason on istochnikovedenie. rians such as V. Z. Drobizhev Stalin had good to dislike and undermine "archive rats": they tend to subvert ideologies and the more narratives, they are in their archival promiscuous grand more are to make discoveries.58 the likely they unexpected searching, interests were all on archival This is not to claim that the revisionists' documents archival When seriousness. of high moral the plane getting and was a matter wits with the archive of matching overcoming keepers was simply inventories like the unavailability of archival barriers (opisi), it now one hit the and then an in which every game enthralling great fun, in a field must be pretty dull working it that I remember thinking jackpot; files and they came. There was no where your archival you just ordered it to the people who had not gained in sticking also some pleasure doubt that to deny seem perverse it would access to the archives. Nevertheless, historical than better is archives with historical scholarship scholarship and forcing into play in Soviet history the archives and bringing without; a revisionist to take account of them was, in the first instance, historians contribution.

''Where Is the Big Picture?" an established historical is usually about unsettling revisionism Scholarly It seems or overtones.59 other one nationalist with often narrative, political to narrative a the The first two forms. come in to grand challenge provides research detailed and deploys that invokes scholarly values and objectivity a counternarrative with a different second it. The to undercut presents and Sovietological are not mutually These exclusive, message. political how In of both. elements contained revisionism my reading, probably it a different to offer (to put crudely, ever, the impulse political message not as bad as it has been some aspect thereof?is "the Soviet Union?or to than the impulse was much weaker scholarship") by Cold War painted The on detailed latter research. based create a nonpartisan scholarship toward social his science with a move was associated away from political and archives.60 or towards from empiricism model-building tory, "Where is the big the objection the first kind of revisionism, With a sense, as this is basically in will always be offered?and justly, picture?" one. Some than a monumental rather a subversive, iconoclastic genre in that to be, revisionists, are, or ought times people say that all scholars 58. as

See

letter

Stalin's

"O nekotorykh

voprosakh

to the

editors

istorii

of Proletarskaia

bol'shevizma,"

in

revoliutsiia, I. V. Stalin,

1951), 13:96. on papers and proceedings based is partly at the European held "Revisionisms" University in Soviet History," "Revisionism I wrote for which November 2006, more the present, write essay. personal, see "Revisionism of this point, 60. For elaboration Fitzpatrick, follows

59. What

conference

on

1931, no. 6, published Sochineniia (Moscow, from

the

comparative in Florence

in

and was

stimulated

to

in Soviet

History."

Institute

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

704

Slavic Review

wis conventional of challenging be in the business they should constantly called Kuhn view of what Thomas dom, but this is no doubt an unrealistic not challenge, dominant "normal function is to elaborate, science," whose of the A more claim might be that revisionism persuasive paradigms.61 to be first type is a natural m?tier tended for historians, who have often situ the disciplinary rather than theorists. This claim fitted empiricists ation of the 1970s, when social built scientists and political sociologists science models and historians usually did not; but the fit is less good for one the first decade of the twenty-first century, when history has become an of the many of of cultural theory, provinces interdisciplinary empire to iconoclasm as well as it less prone making empiricism. If the great age of revisionism in Soviet history the age of lay between social science models a clue to us and that of cultural that may theory, give as a its characteristics about iconoclasm received ideas, strategy: scholarly on about grand narratives, and of lots hard work skepticism empiricism, sources. In Isaiah Berlins the Soviet history revisionists terms, primary were foxes, who know who know one many things, rather than hedgehogs, one or foxes both on big thing.62 Whether prefers hedgehogs depends individual and on collective but a lively intellectual fashion, temperament life requires both of them. Vivat revisionism (and post-revisionism too)!

York,

61.

Thomas

62.

Isaiah

1953).

The

s. Kuhn, Berlin,

The

metaphor

The Structure Hedgehog comes

3d ed. of Scientific Revolutions, on the Fox: An Essay Tolstoys from the Greek poet Archilochus. and

24. 1996), (Chicago, View of (New History

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:05:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions