Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas:  jgo.e-reviews 7 (2017), 1 Rezensionen online / Im Auftrag des Instituts für Ost- und Südosteuropastudien in Regensburg herausgegeben von Martin Schulze Wessel und Dietmar Neutatz

Verfasst von: Sandra Evans

Gábor T. Rittersporn: Anguish, Anger, and Folkways in Soviet Russia. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014. X, 396 S. = Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. ISBN: 978-0-8229-6320-2.

A brief and adroit contextualization, if not historicisation of historical research on the Soviet Union introduces the book Anguish, Anger, and Folkways in Soviet Russia by Gabor Rittersporn. Essentially three different phases of research are identified with an initial focus on party politics and the system (what Rittersporn refers to as “input”) while revisionists distanced themselves by writing a social history of the political sphere in a second phase (1970s and 80s) and a younger generation of researchers is directing attention towards the other end of Soviet society and the actual execution of directives (“output”) in a third phase (starting in the 1990s). It is no secret anymore that the great plans of the Soviet regime did not pan out as intended. The system and how it evolved over time was extremely ambivalent and essentially a compromise between the grand political vision and the paltry reality it was confronted with. Rittersporn essentially questions the degree to which this ambiguity might be (deliberately or not) a decisive and accordingly constitutive political mechanism. Based on the different schools of thought he presents Rittersporn places himself above all, connecting the three approaches by analyzing how daily activities influenced political processes with the help of socio-cultural categories.

The book is divided into three parts, each of which is dedicated to one word in the title of the book. The first part on anguish reveals different dimensions of anxiety that policy-contained uncertainties caused not only among ordinary persons, but also amongst party officials. Thus, anguish was not only caused by state terror but also caused state terror, one inadvertently contingent on the other. A large amount of misunderstanding resulted from the misinterpretation of systemic ambiguities and incongruences, which changed over time (as did the policies) and with it the victims of state-induced terror. As the system became more established and people more familiar with its working, violence decreased accordingly.

The second part of the book focuses on anger especially by youth, who were disappointed in the inevitable deviations from the original Bolshevik doctrine, but also by others. Some of the anger was channeled into (self)destructive practices and into revolt (maybe typical for adolescents) which Rittersporn in general compares with rebellious folk customs in other cultures. The manner in which the regime countered these activities and the way it changed over time reveals a great deal about the way the system evolved.

The third part is dedicated to folkways as coping measures. How did officials and ordinary people deal with the pressures caused by the ambivalence-creating discrepancies in the system and what kind of mechanisms did they use in the everyday to cope? Rittersporn highlights carnevalistic and entrepreneurial folkways, which range from telling jokes and rumors to “kolkhoz markets” (where participants inter alia sold home-grown produce) that enabled persons to edge out an existence in a callous and confusing world. Rittersporn takes a closer look at how people’s practices of coping with everyday challenges affected the system and the regime. Rittersporn concludes that the anguish and anger experienced flowed into the Soviet folkways that in turn inadvertently shaped political processes and the system.

Overall the book is very well written and is packed with stories that make the subject matter very vivid and accessible. Archival material that has just recently been made available provides further and a more diversified insight into the trials and tribulations that characterize Soviet society. At certain points Rittersporn provides guidance to the researcher on how and what to consider when assessing the content of these specific archives. Moreover, in his book Rittersporn not only spans all three research approaches, but also time: his analysis reaches from pre- to post-Soviet times and into the present day as he speaks of the reconquest of Crimea. Consequently, together with Rittersporn the reader moves in and out of space and time in his book, which can be quite instructive but at times a bit distracting.

In the introduction Rittersporn states that the book “explores imageries, emotions, and daily practices in a confused and confusing society” (p. 10). With the three key concepts in the title of the book touching on telling social and cultural phenomena, an according theoretical or definitive framework for these different emotions and daily practices seems indispensable. There was a recent boom in research activity on emotions, also in the historical sciences (especially by colleagues such as Ute Frevert in a more general and Jan Plamper in a more specifically Russian context), divulging that emotions can serve as a very insightful resource for historical research in the political sphere but also the everyday in the conceptualization and “agency” of specific emotions. One of the emotions that has been researched rather extensively is fear which has served in exemplifying different ways to access emotions in history.

Another term in need of more definitive explanation is the term folkways. The definition Rittersporn provides is: “They consisted of responses citizens and officials devised to deal with policies, particular ways to cope with the universe they created, and peculiar cultural models …” (p. 187) “Folklore” refers to an enormous and deeply significant dimension of culture, past (traditions carried forward) and present (current practices) ranging from beliefs and knowledge to art and everyday practices. Considering how large and complex this subject is there is admittedly no one definite definition, which however is all the more reason to specify its use in the highly politicized Soviet context. Surely Rittersporn purposefully uses the term folkways to place coping activities in the present, yet he in addition uses the terms “Soviet folk customs” (p. 190), “Soviet folk culture”, “folk habits” (p. 191), and “folklore” somewhat interchangeably to where also here he transcends time and space.

While Anguish, Anger, and Folkways in Soviet Russia by Gabor Rittersporn provides a unique and instructive insight into the mechanisms of a highly politicized Soviet society under great pressures and afflicted by grave uncertainties, a more stringent theoretical substantiation of socio-cultural phenomena such as emotions and folkways would have been desirable. However, this arduous archival work is nonetheless of expedient value for current scholarship on the constitution and implications of Soviet political processes.

Sandra Evans, Tübingen

Zitierweise: Sandra Evans über: Gábor T. Rittersporn: Anguish, Anger, and Folkways in Soviet Russia. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2014. X, 396 S. = Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies. ISBN: 978-0-8229-6320-2, http://www.dokumente.ios-regensburg.de/JGO/erev/Evans_Rittersporn_Anguish_Anger_and_Folkways.html (Datum des Seitenbesuchs)

© 2017 by Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropastudien in Regensburg and Sandra Evans. All rights reserved. This work may be copied and redistributed for non-commercial educational purposes, if permission is granted by the author and usage right holders. For permission please contact jahrbuecher@ios-regensburg.de

Die digitalen Rezensionen von „Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. jgo.e-reviews“ werden nach den gleichen strengen Regeln begutachtet und redigiert wie die Rezensionen, die in den Heften abgedruckt werden.

Digital book reviews published in Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. jgo.e-reviews are submitted to the same quality control and copy-editing procedure as the reviews published in print.