CFP of the Revue d'Histoire des Sciences Humaines for the special issue "Social and Human Sciences in the Soviet Union" (ENG and FR)

Olessia Kirtchik's picture
Description: 

Revue d'Histoire des Science Humaines

SOCIAL AND HUMAN SCIENCES IN THE SOVIET UNION: A LABORATORY OF MODERNITY IN THE 20TH CENTURY? (guest edited by Isabelle Gouarné and Olessia Kirtchik)

As a follow-up to the thematic issue "Sociology Behind the Iron Curtain" published by
RHSH in 2007, this project aims to revisit the history of the social sciences and humanities
(SSH) in the Soviet Union, against the simplistic clichés that have long considered them as an
exceptional case, cut-off from the history of modernity in the 20th century. The Soviet SSH
were thus thought above all as “impeded”, without real autonomy, victims of censorship and
violent repression, when it was not the whole discipline (sociology, psychotechnics,
paidology, or psychoanalysis, for example) that was condemned. Intellectual innovations
originating among Soviet SSH scholars were very often analyzed only as the result of their
strategies of evasion, resistance or smuggling in the face of the Soviet power.
Without ignoring the political and ideological constraints in which they were taken,
the objective of this thematic issue is to question this narrative depicting the Soviet SSH as a
counter-example of the Western humanitarian sciences shaped in the 20th century by the
processes of autonomisation and professionalisation. Since the 2000s, indeed, a finer and
more complex view of the relations between the SSH and the Soviet power has emerged. A
whole series of case studies have taken as their object statistics, economics, ethnology, and
other disciplines valued for their “social utility,” linked with planning and construction of a
socialist state. They have pointed out the convergences that could have existed not without
misunderstandings, or the multiple tensions between the political vocation of the SSH and the
Soviet project of a socialist state.
 
In this perspective, we suggest to put at the heart of the analysis strategies and
practices deployed in order to develop negotiated research spaces, with greater or lesser
freedom according to the period of time. Paper proposals may deal with various disciplines
and subfields of the Soviet SSH and possibly question the Soviet particularities in disciplinary
demarcations and labelling. Social history approaches, paying a special attention to
institutions, actors, but also to ideas, theories and knowledge produced, are highly welcome.
 
In particular, the articles may choose to address, non-exclusively, the following issues:
 
1/ How, first, to think about the forms of adherence, consent, resistance or avoidance
that emerged in the face of the avatars of the Party-state aiming at framing production and
circulation of knowledge as well as other scholarly activities (such as censorship organs, party
cells and youth organizations at research institutes and universities)? These institutions of
political and ideological control willing to dominate the whole of intellectual life could only
function by associating scholars, thus forced to deploy strategies of compromise, adaptation
or challenge. Could these control mechanisms not only be the instruments of imposition and
state repression, but also resources mobilized in the intellectual struggles or even places of
negotiation, where some muted contestations of the Soviet order and its hierarchies were
possible?
 
2/ We are also interested in the relations that the SSH have maintained with State
expertise by specifying the multiple modalities by which Soviet scholars were, according to
the periods, mobilized for the construction of the socialist state: "counseling" and "diagnosis",
participation in the implementation of governmental policies in various social and economic
domains, and so on. How did the Soviet SSH (and with what expectations) respond to the
social demand, implicit or explicit, from the State which pretended to rest upon “scientific
basis”? In what ways did this state mobilization of knowledge articulate scientific and/or
political forms of legitimization?
 
3/ Finally, we question the ambivalence of the internationalization of Soviet science,
especially during the post-Stalin and “late socialism” periods. If it offered Soviet scientists
new opportunities as well as material and symbolic resources, the policies of international
openness also created additional constraints, because of the strict control exercised by the
political power over contacts with foreign scholars and institutions. To what extent could
expressions of loyalty be combined with forms of protest aimed at redefining the boundaries
of the SSH, both institutionally and intellectually? How has internationalization been able to
foster strategies jointly of intellectual autonomy and, at the same time, reaffirmation of the
usefulness of this knowledge and its anchoring in the political project of the socialist
governance of society?
 
4/Breaking with the binary oppositions inherited from the Cold War (East / West,
ideology / science, closed / open society, dissent / loyalty and so on), this thematic issue aims
to question the place of the Soviet SSH as a laboratory of modernity in the 20th century. The
discussions that they provoked, the affinities that they had with the political project of social
transformation, the close relations that they forged with the state power, and also the
repressions they suffered, interrogate this striving to govern rationally the populations that
was at the heart of modern societies and the impasses to which it led in the 20th century.
Instructions for authors
 
Article proposals (3000 characters maximum), in English, French or Russian, should
be sent before April 15, 2019 to the following addresses: adrhsh@gmail.com;
 
The thematic issue will be published at the end of 2020. The journal accepts articles in
English and French, from 30,000 to 50,000 characters (spaces included).