I’m reading Redefining Stalinism, which so far isn’t doing much redefining. Or, rather, it is using ‘Stalinism’ in its classically pejorative sense, where ‘Stalinism’ means something like ’scary totalitarianism’ and ’scary totalitarianism’ more or less means ‘Bad’. Which, if you’re going to play that game – the one where you look at a series of historical events and call them names – is fine, I guess (though, really, is that game even that interesting to play?). But as far as a historical analysis of events, as far as deepening our understanding of historical events (which, to be fair, I’m not even sure is the game that we do play/should be playing with respect to history), doesn’t go far, since in this case ‘Stalinism’ just reduces to ‘Bad’, and questions like “What was Stalinism?” (which seems to be the focus of the book) just reduce, somehow, to “How did such a Bad Thing happen?”, and descriptives become causal explanations, themselves working as a kind of historical apologia, either for History, or for the Everyday Soviet Man (rarely, if ever, for Stalin himself). But, I guess, what is History that we need to defend Its actions (or, is such a theodicy even necessary)? And who are we to try to justify the lives of Soviets (and, implicitly, suggest that their lives need such a defense [and, by way of a lack of such an explanation in the here and now, that our lives don't])?
3 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
My God, you haven’t even started classes and it’s already begun. Regardless of the merits or shortcomings of the book (which I haven’t read), the problem is that you seem to begin with a distorted and I think fairly unhealthy and potentially dangerous sense of what doing history is or should be.
You begin with the assumption that doing history is by definition some kind of game. Given this, it makes sense that your primary concern would be making the game one that is “interesting to play.” But, my dear, History is not Age of Empires or Scatagories.
Or perhaps I misunderstand your point. You seem to suggest an amoral approach to historical analysis, by defining all value judgments as mere name calling. I would ask, what worth is any history of Stalin and Stalinism to anyone–ourselves, the future, and those who suffered under it–if it doesn’t ask the most basic questions of how and why did such evil occur? But Bush and Co. have made us afraid to call a spade a spade, and the term or even implication’evil’ simply mustn’t be employed by good(sic), amoral, neutral, fact-seeking, historians who would rather not muddy themselves with the petty questions that occupy us common folk. How silly we are to approach Stalin primarily in terms of what was ‘bad’ about him, when the Enlightened understand that there is no third term betwixt the facts of the man and the facts of the 30 or so million people he butchered! Silly, us.
Also, he was NOT cute in that picture. He has a butt chin, and looks like a greasy Reedy.
Comment by akspdx September 19, 2008 @ 10:51 amOkay, well, first, about the game metaphor: I talk games because I like to emphasize the ruley aspects of things, the ways that things are “played”, etc. I don’t mean to say that historiography, or politics, or lived lives are literally games. That is, “if you’re going to play that game” should, roughly, be read as “if you’re going to play by those rules”.
And no, those aren’t rules that I like, especially in this case, where ‘Stalinism’ literally seems to reduce to ‘Bad’, which flattens the picture of the Stalin era in ways which don’t seem to relate to (some) people’s actual experience of it, and eliminates any analysis of positive aspects of Stalinism (modernization, a certain kind of restructuring of the roads to advancement, which includes a certain kind of approximation of a meritocracy) (you might compare this flattening to that which occurs in historiography dealing with Germany). It also eliminates the possibility of, for example, a positive comparison to the rule of Peter I, to which is attributed many of the same characteristics (those listed above and a form of despotism, Europeanization, etc.).
These, it seems to me, are problems that arise when historical practice becomes too involved with moralizing. Other problems, of course, arise when historical practice becomes too removed from moralizing – it can seem to justify atrocities, to reify suffering, etc. You don’t see me commenting on that problem here, though, mostly because very few historical works dealing with Russia suffer from it. The historiography dealing with Russia, rather, has become littered (especially during the Cold War) with books whose authors seemed only to want to find fancy ways to say either that Communism is Bad, that Russia is Backward, or that We are better than They are. And, well, said fancily or not, those don’t seem to me to be interesting points to make.
Comment by khrushchevinlove September 19, 2008 @ 5:51 pmWell, first the comparison that you make between Peter the Great (An Official Title, btw) and Stalin rather demonstrates what I was saying, or clumsily trying to say. Namely, that non-Grad students who value history have this thing that Grad students deplore: Common sense. ;) And common sense immediately recognizes the BIG difference between Peter the Great and Stalin that validates undertaking a moral analysis. What is it, you ask? Peter the Great did not kill 30 million Russians. If you compare modernization and other raw ‘objective’ facts without this over-arching fact in mind, then I think you miss the point. But then again, you don’t believe in ‘The Point.’ All the more the pity. (Though I still love you!)
Comment by akspdx September 19, 2008 @ 6:13 pm