Beyond Brezhnevism: Growing autonomy for social groups and assimilation of Socialist values

/ Termine

Beyond Brezhnevism: Growing autonomy for social groups and assimilation of Socialist values

Veranstalter
Cahiers du Monde Russe
Veranstaltungsort
Ort
Paris
Land
France
Vom - Bis
16.04.2012 -
Deadline
01.06.2012
Website
http://monderusse.revues.org
Von
Marc Elie

Please find enclosed a call for papers by Cahiers du Monde russe for aspecial issue devoted to the USSR's final decades:

"Beyond Brezhnevism: Growing autonomy for social groups and assimilation of Socialist values"

The image of “real Socialism” as an age of “stagnation” is gradually disappearing from studies of the Soviet Union. Indeed the clear cultural and social changes of the Brezhnev era are now part of a revised historiography. Despite the immobility of a political leadership unable to bring any serious reform to a drifting economic and social system, as political repression and ideological control slackened, Soviet citizens created, revived and occupied areas of autonomy.
At the same time, the socio-cultural processes that flourished in 1964-1982 had their own timing that preceded or extended beyond the precise dates of Brezhnev’s rule: this concerns urban planning, the development of tourism, communications and media, and greater access to higher education. The study of these already reported phenomena deserves to be reviewed on the basis of the written and oral sources to which the researcher now has access. Similarly, the recent emphasis on the spread of cross-border patterns of consumption and thought and the increase in international exchanges places the geographical bounds of the Soviet Union in a wider context.

Cahiers du Monde Russe wishes to challenge “Brezhnevism” in two ways, as the incarnation of “stagnation” and as a strictly delineated temporal and spatial framework, unsuited to the study of the profound social, cultural and economic changes that prepared the way for the upheavals of the late 1980s and the collapse of the USSR.

Abstracts (500 words maximum) in French, English, Russian or German should be submitted to bb.cmr@ehess.fr by 1 June 2012.

Authors of accepted abstracts will be informed by the end of June 2012
Submission language: French, English, Russian or German
Article submission deadline : 1st April 2013
Article length : 60 000 signs (including spaces and notes)
Publication : First half of 2014
Editors : Isabelle Ohayon, Marc Elie

"Au-delà du Brejnévisme: autonomisation des acteurs sociaux et assimilation des valeurs socialistes"

L'image du « socialisme réel » comme ère de la « stagnation » disparaît peu à peu des études sur l'Union soviétique. Ce sont bien plutôt les transformations culturelles et sociales manifestes à l'ère brejnévienne qui sont aujourd'hui l'objet d'un renouvellement historiographique. Malgré l'immobilisme d'une direction politique incapable de réformer sérieusement un système économique et politique à la dérive, et alors que s'atténuent la répression politique et le contrôle idéologique, les Soviétiques créent, revigorent et investissent des espaces d’autonomie.

En même temps, les processus socio-culturels qui s'épanouissent pendant les années 1964-1982 obéissent à des temporalités propres qui précèdent ou débordent les bornes chronologiques de la direction brejnévienne : qu'on pense à l'urbanisation, au développement du tourisme, des moyens de communications et des médias, ou encore à l'accès accru à l'enseignement supérieur. L'étude de ces phénomènes déjà relevés mérite d'être renouvelée sur la base de sources écrites ou orales auxquelles le chercheur a désormais accès. De même, l’accent porté récemment sur la diffusion de modes de consommation et de pensée transnationaux et sur l'augmentation des échanges internationaux relativise le cadre géographique soviétique.
Les Cahiers du Monde russe souhaitent remettre doublement en cause le « brejnévisme », à la fois comme incarnation de la « stagnation » et comme cadre temporel et spatial strictement borné, inadapté à l'étude des évolutions sociales, culturelles et économiques profondes qui amenèrent les bouleversements de la seconde moitié des années 1980 et l'effondrement de l'URSS.

Les titres et propositions (500 mots maximum) devront être adressées pour le 1er juin 2012 à l'adresse bb.cmr@ehess.fr

Les auteurs des propositions retenus seront informés avant la fin juin 2012.

Langues acceptées français, anglais, russe ou allemand
Date de remise des articles : Ier avril 2013
Volume des articles : 60 000 signes (notes et espaces comprises)
Publication : Premier semestre 2014
Editeurs : Isabelle Ohayon, Marc Elie

"Au-delà du brejnévisme / Beyond Brezhnevism: автономизация социальных акторов и усвоение социалистических ценностей"

Образ «реального социализма» как эпохи застоя постепенно исчезает из исследований, посвященных Советскому Союзу. Предметом изучения новой историографии становятся скорее культурные и социальные трансформации, происходившие в СССР в годы правления Брежнева. Несмотря на неподвижность политического руководства, неспособного реформировать всё больше ускользающую из-под его контроля экономическую и политическую систему, советские люди создавали и укрепляли пространства автономии, действуя в условиях ослабления политических репрессий и идеологического контроля.
Ширящиеся в 1964-1982 гг. культурно-социальные процессы развивались, подчиняясь собственным ритму и логике, которые выходили за хронологические рамки брежневского правления. В качестве примеров можно упомянуть урбанизацию, развитие туризма, средств коммуникации и массовой информации, наконец, расширение доступа к высшему образованию. Перед нами стоит задача, опираясь на недавно ставшие доступными письменные и устные источники, обновить изучение этих явлений, уже привлекавших ранее внимание исследователей. Отметим, что в работах последних лет отмечается рост международных обменов и распространение транснациональных способов потребления и мышления, что подчеркивает относительный характер географических рамок советского общества.

Редакция журнала Cahiers du Monde russe намерена поставить под сомнение понятие «брежневизма», причем в качестве как воплощения «застоя», так и четко ограниченного временного и географического пространства – в силу его непригодности для изучения глубоких социальных, культурных и экономических изменений, приведших к потрясениям второй половины 1980-х гг. и развалу СССР.

Заявки с тезисами ожидаются до 1 июня 2012 г. на адрес: bb.cmr@ehess.fr.

Авторы выбранных заявок до конца июня 2012
Языки: французский, английский, русский или немецкий
Срок подачи статей: 1 апреля 2013
Длинна статей: 60 000 знаков (включая пробелов и сносок)
Публикация: первое полугодие 2014
Редакторы: Isabelle Ohayon, Marc Elie

Programm

A few research suggestions:
Pax sovietica? Social control and contestation
Internally under Brezhnev there were no longer the revolts on the western borders of the Stalinist system at its height nor the lively popular discontent found under Khrushchev. The authorities governed using a “moral order” founded on the glorification of the Great Patriotic War and severe punishment of petty crime. However, contestation of the existing order did not disappear: dissidence on the human rights front is the best known, but there was also
nationalist, religious, social and cultural contestation. CMR invites contributors to review the opposing pairs of order/disorder, inclusion/exclusion to examine how it was possible for professional networks, social cliques, subcultures and forms of escape, real and virtual, to flourish, often beneath the structures of the regime, without necessarily directly opposing its demands. How can one explain the political stability while areas of plurality and objection were developing?

Soviet patriotism and “republic” consolidation
Under Brezhnev, the regime’s rituals were largely accepted and Soviet patriotism was widespread. The Party expanded, its operations became more conventional and membership became a key element in a career. At the same time, the constituent republics received increased autonomy. However, given the lack of thorough studies, many questions pertaining to this change remain unanswered. For example, it is assumed that a “second indigenisation” changed management policy, but this hypothesis needs to be supported by works in historical sociology. The republics had their own breeding grounds for elites, locally born or trained, Russified members of all nationalities. The “republic” authorities took full advantage of Soviet federalism and indigenisation to establish their own identities. CMR would like to revive the question of the consolidation and stability of these first secretaries’ political teams and open up new research into how greater republic autonomy was asserted. How did relations between the centre and the territories develop at a time when the apparently contradictory pair of loyalty/autonomy was being redefined?

Soviet-style consumer society: social and regional differentiation
Whereas differences of wealth were reduced under “real Socialism”, did not the development of urban habits of consumption and culture encourage a diversity and differentiation of life-styles along geographical and social lines? CMR intends to focus on citizens and their new socio-cultural behaviour. What was happening with the younger generation’s collective initiatives (“tourist” trips, theatre, music and improvisation, kapustniki, kruzhki, sports supporters, etc.)? With artists developing new forms of creation and avant-garde, in some cases in relation with other Socialist and capitalist countries? With greater diversity in food and clothing? Did these practices segment Soviet society, and if so, how?

Country areas too were moving towards greater social and regional diversity. Although central farm policy offered everyone the possibility of living off the proceeds of limited, regulated private property, there were major discrepancies in living and consuming standards, particularly in food. The legal status of private property in rural areas was often stretched in the Caucasus and Central Asia: private livestock and market gardening took on significant dimensions, on the basis of specific social structures, while in European Russia the flight from the land reflected a severe crisis in peasant society. How did the people involved accumulate, consume and distribute the proceeds of private labour outside the legal framework?

Cooperation, competition and conflict
Although in global terms the Socialist system achieved its greatest extension in 1980, relations between the USSR and some Socialist regimes (China, Romania, Albania) deteriorated markedly. Apart from these ups and downs, what else can be said about exchanges between the USSR and the people’s democracies and other Socialist countries? Is the hypothesis of a strengthening of links within the Eastern bloc supported by analysis of tourist trips, university exchanges and scientific and technical cooperation within Comecon?
As far as the West was concerned, despite the Cold War and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, there was as much cooperation as competition. How did “Cold War culture” develop—cultural conditioning and social mobilisation for conflict in industrialised countries—at a time when foreign contacts and exchanges were becoming more frequent? Scientific research in particular is a rich field for study in which personal contacts were formed between researchers belonging to opposing “systems”.

These few suggestions are far from exhaustive. Proposals will be welcome from many and various disciplines and fields: environment, technical-scientific expertise and development policy; arts, literature, music and films; religious life; political authority; foreign policy; slackening growth, major projects and parallel economy; memory policy and ideological research; demography; etc.

Kontakt

Marc Elie

Cahiers du Monde russe 190-198 avenue de France 75244 Paris cedex 13

bb.cmr@ehess.fr

http://monderusse.revues.org