Putin as Narratological Node in Russian History
By Sean at 21 July, 2007, 6:37 am
I was hoping to get to the controversy over the new strongly suggested for the Russian classroom, Noveyshaya istoriia Rossii 1945-2006. Kniga dlia uchitelia (A Contemporary History of Russia 1945-2006. A Book for the Teacher) and Global’nyi mir v XXI veka (The Global World in the 21st Century), but time did not allow it.
Kommersant had a long article in its weekly Vlast’ magazine detailing how the texts were basically funded by the Office of the President. Among other things were orders handed down “from the administration” on how the texts should evaluate Russian historical figures. According to an anonymous co-author:
“Stalin is good (He strengthened vertical power, but there wasn’t private property); Khrushchev is bad (He weakened vertical power); Brezhnev is good by the same criteria as Stalin; Gorbachev and Yeltsin are bad (They destroyed the country, however under Yeltsin private property arose); Putin is the best ruler (He reinforced vertical power and private property)”
Luckily for all of us, Robert Amsterdam has done us the best service. He’s provided a translation of two articles on the subject from Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Oleg Kashin’s “In Search of a ‘Short Course’” and “I Would Very Much not Want my Name to be Associated with this Disgrace” They lay out the necessary particulars better than I can.
The Washington Post has a long article on the controversy as well. It appears the texts take Russian historical memory further down a path I’ve thought it’s been going down under Putin: a movement away from the history produced in the 1990s which looked to damn the Soviet system in toto to one that reconciles Soviet and post-Soviet history in some sort of grand, and mostly uncritical, continuum. As russkii Karl Rove, Vladislav Surkov, told the pedagogical conference where the texts were introduced, “We must see the dark moments of history and its problems. But I presume that it would also be wrong to go as far as to completely deny the successes and achievements of our great country. . . . Without answering the questions of who we are, how we should live and what we are living for, effective political work and an effective economic system are impossible.” The answer to these questions of national identity lie in the ideological hegemony that all past roads lead to Putin, and all future ones will emanate from him.
One of the first signs of any stable state is when it endeavors to create a history of itself and for itself.
Update: Now you can also test your knowledge of Russian history. Kommersant has provided a short quiz where the answers are based on the next textbook. Test your knowledge.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My mother-in-law is extremely disappointed with this text and revision of history. She sadly replied that she would be unable to teach history now.
Everything becomes worse, she said.
From the exerpt I read in Kommersant, it seemed Stalin was portrayed more of as “ambigious” than as “good.”
Maybe I’ll pivk up a copy and read it myself.
Roy Medvedev had some comments that I think were mentioned in the MT a week or so ago.
Maybe I’ll pivk up a copy and read it myself.
Before you do, try to pass a little test.
Thanks for the link db. I’ll add it to the main article.
Oh and Chris, surely the fact that Stalin strengthened vertical power but didn’t allow private property is a sign of ambiguity.
The little snippet on Stalin I read was in the vein of “Stalin is an ambivalent figure; like Peter the Great, he modernized the country and presided over great victories, but at the same time there were terrible repressions.” That sort of stuff. Pretty noncontroversial really.
That test is what made my mother-in-law reply that she couldn’t teach history in Russia now.
Language like “consolidated vertical power” and “terrible repressions” disguise the fact that he murdered or displaced millions of his own citizens in the process.
It’s a little bit like saying Ghenghis Khan liked to ride horses, was an excellent shot with a bow, traveled the world, and was very organized.
It’s another sign of the Hegelian swing of things in Russia. I just wonder how far right the pendulum is going to travel before correcting itself.
It’s another sign of the Hegelian swing of things in Russia. I just wonder how far right the pendulum is going to travel before correcting itself.
Many would argue that the current swing is the correction. Despite the efforts of the Soviet system to break with its Tsarist past, it nonetheless reconciled with it. So too with post-Soviet Russia. The effort to carve out the Soviet period as some sort of historical cancer has failed as a political project. Post-Soviet Russia must have a national history that corresponds with the political present and I think that this text is one way to do it. In this sense calling it a new “Short Course” is a misnomer since its ideological aspirations appear to be far grander.
“Language like “consolidated vertical power” and “terrible repressions” disguise the fact that he murdered or displaced millions of his own citizens in the process.”
“Terrible repressions” means “that he murdered or displaced millions of his own citizens.”
“Russia’s past was amazing, its present is more than marvelous, and as for the future, it is greater than anything the wildest imagination could picture; that is the point of view for examining and writing Russian history.”
Okay, folks, for a grand prize of shashlyk at my dacha… who said it and when?
… who said it and when?
Too easy.
Hm. I may have to make a lot of shashlyk:>)