This post is going to veer pretty far from our course material (and jump ahead into the Cold War). Nonetheless, the Soviet Union has been popping up a fair amount in another course I’m taking this semester called Transnational America. It’s my first course in the American Studies department, and it examines how US culture has been formed by our interactions with foreign peoples at home and abroad. We’ve just done a series of readings about American attempts to win over citizens in countries in Africa and the Middle East from Soviet influence, and I’m realizing that some aspects of American culture can be seen as a reaction to the Soviet arts.

One example we read about was the use of jazz music as a tool for spreading American values and goodwill abroad. In the 1950’s, the US sponsored the first of a series of jazz tours in the Middle East and South Africa. Up until this point, jazz music was scorned and marginalized as an art form because it was practiced almost exclusively by African-Americans. US policy makers had no partiality towards jazz music, but they selected it simply because they knew it was unlike anything else the Soviet Union could offer. The US knew that they couldn’t compete with Russia when it came to the arts – they lagged far behind in theater, dance, and classical music. However, they also recognized that whereas Russian art forms such as ballet and classical music were beautiful in their rigidity, jazz encouraged freedom of expression – a value that could not be found under Soviet leadership.

The dichotomy between freedom of expression and adherence to state-issued rules can also be seen in the visual arts. In my Transnational America class, we looked at works of art by Jackson Pollock and compared them to the idea of Soviet socialist realism. Whereas the Pollack pieces were abstract and welcomed myriad different interpretations and analyses, the socialist realist paintings were, as we can all guess, realistic depictions of quotidian Soviet experiences. My knowledge of art history is limited, and anyone who is well versed in it would probably cringe at my claim that abstract American art is a reaction to soviet art, but I think it is safe to say that modern American art was a weapon in the fight against the Soviet union in the cold war. A New Yorker article I found while researching this topic puts it well: “[American modern art] was avant-garde, the product of an advanced civilization. In contrast to Soviet painting, it was neither representational nor didactic… Either way, Abstract Expressionism stood for autonomy: the autonomy of art, freed from its obligation to represent the world, or the freedom of the individual—just the principles that the United States was defending in the worldwide struggle.”

The examples I’ve presented barely scratch the surface of the lasting effects of US-Soviet interactions in the Cold War, and they’re definitely the most benign – our most recent reading in Transnational America examined how US strategies to defeat Russia in Afghanistan planted the seeds for 9/11.  As we move forward into the Cold War in our study of the history of Russia, I’ll be interested to learn more about how this period in history has shaped our world today.

New Yorker article for anyone interested:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/17/051017crat_atlarge

Before taking this course, I can honestly say that I had a very naive, idealistic vision of how history played a role in society. In true American fashion, I believed that history was irrevocable, it couldn’t be altered and it was certain. I took comfort in knowing that regardless of what happens on a day to day basis, history remains the same. I’ve come to realize however, just how easily history can be changed, molded, or even forgotten over time. Despite this disconcerting realization that I’ve reached over this semester, I’ve realized that there is one constant with the study of history, and that is change. Studying the history of Russia, and in particular that of the Soviet Union has proven this time and time again. Its truly fascinating to see just how easily Soviet history is changed, adopted, and twisted to fit the needs of those in charge.

For example, when Stalin became the leader of the Soviet Union it was common knowledge within the inner circle that Lenin had not wanted Stalin to become the leader. As a result, Stalin sought to eliminate that aspect of history, and strove to create himself as the ultimate, all-knowing Father of Russia. He did this by getting rid of Lenin’s supporters, and by taking many of Lenin’s quotes out of context to show himself as Lenin’s chosen heir. By erasing people who knew the truth about Lenin’s opinions of Stalin, he was able to erase and twist history to suit his own needs.

This idea was also clearly epitomized on February 24, 1956, when Khrushchev delivered a “secret speech” to a closed session of the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party. In this speech, Khrushchev not only denounced Stalin for his transgressions, but also disassociated himself and the Communist Party from any of Stalin’s actions while leader of the Soviet Union. With one single speech, Khrushchev transformed Stalin from a national hero to the image of a tyrannical mass murderer. Similar to Stalin, Khrushchev also got rid of supporters of the old leader, though through the less violent means of deportation and demotion.

As much as Khrushchev strove to emphasize the differences between him and Stalin, it is clear that both had some similarities. One key aspect of their lives that was similar was how both manipulated history to suit their own needs. No matter how hard Khrushchev tried to distance himself from Stalin, there was no escaping this commonality. This idea is common not only in leaders throughout history, but also within every individual. We’re all guilty of changing memories we posess, and in turn, we alter history collectively.  The histories we know are not objectively correct, they’re simply the only ones we have. The Russian people were dictated their nation’s history by their leader, and it was the only one accepted and taught. The ability of history to be so easily changed with each passing leader only solidifies the susceptibility of history to change.

Last semester a friend of mine in my dorm, having heard that I planned to be a Russian major, recommended a movie to me that he thought I would find enjoyable. The movie’s name was Eastern Promises and I decided to go and check it out. Upon watching the movie I noticed two things in particular; one, the Russian in the movie was absolutely atrocious, and two, this movie continued the stereotype that all Russians are gangsters and alcoholics. Having seen this I decided to continue to watch some more American made movies in order to see how Russians are usually portrayed and how this portrayal has changed since the Cold War.

One iconic movie that I viewed was the original Red Dawn, made in 1984 during the Cold War. This movie was about the Soviets invading the US and followed a gang of teenagers who attempted to repel the Russians from their town. Throughout the movie the Soviets are portrayed as this huge evil force that needs to be destroyed. This goes along with the Cold War theme of “better dead than Red” however it still perpetuates the stereotype of Russians being negative.

Moving into the modern era of film, I chose to review The Avengers. While the Russian theme in this movie is not quite as obvious, I think it still resonates through its viewers. One of the characters know as the Black Widow, was originally a Russian agent who defected to the United States. A master assassin, she is displayed as showing little empathy and a low moral standard, even saying at one point “regimes fall every day, I tend not to weep over that…I’m Russian”.

While these are only three examples of many, I think they definitely show what the American definition of a “typical” Russian is generally perceive to be. I think that this media and film coverage of Russians has helped to create a lack of knowledge about Russian culture and people which will continue to cause negative relations between the US and Russians. As with all other cultures, American media needs to be careful in how it portrays the Russian people as it has a huge effect on peoples opinions of other culutres.

When I came home for spring break, my mom welcomed me with a good dinner, homemade brownies, and a copy of the 1971 Oscar-winning film Nicholas and Alexandra. Based on Robert K. Massie’s book of the same name, this film chronicles the story of the last Tsar and his family from the birth of their son Alexi until their execution in 1918. My mom said the book and the movie were among her favorites when she was a kid, and she has an interest in Russian history that she has been satisfying by living vicariously through me over the course of the semester.

We watched the film together later during my break, and I was struck by how the filmmakers managed to provoke sympathy for both the royal family and the peasants, revolutionaries, and soldiers who wanted to see their downfall. Though there were scenes revolving around the Russian masses and their hardships, the film did focus (as the name suggests) on the dynamics within the royal family and their closest advisors and friends. In our study of the last days of the dynasty, the tsar seemed to be an inefficient and irritating institution that did nothing to advance social progress. This view was confirmed in the film – Nicholas was clearly a lousy military commander, and generally unfit for the responsibility that fell to him. However, the film represented a human component of the tsar that I think is easy to overlook in a sweeping view of Russian history. Nicholas came into power based solely on his birth, and did not seem to relish or enjoy his responsibilities. One could place blame on the institution of the dynasty and the passage of power from generation to generation rather than Nicholas’s innate shortcomings. Looking at reviews from when the film was first released, it seems that viewers were disappointed that the film focused on the people with, as Roger Ebert put it, the “least interesting perspective” on the revolution. While the film did touch upon revolutionary activity, and that activity would have made a fascinating film in itself, I think that the choice to tell the story of the royal family reminds viewers (both those seeking entertainment and history) that the royal family has a human component that shouldn’t be overlooked.

I’d recommend this film to anyone with a few hours to kill and a desire to see the Romanovs brought to life. If you need further enticing, there’s also a scene with an opium-smoking Rasputin and a cross-dressing orchestra member, but that’s another story for another day.

As Claire said, I’ve fallen behind on blogging and will be playing some catch-up into the weekend. In today’s lecture on the soviet penal system, I was thinking about how the relationship between the state and the citizenry has an effect on the relationships between citizens. In the case of the penal system, the state instilled fear in its citizens with the constant threat of unexpected (and often, unwarranted) imprisonment and punishment. The resulting lack of trust between the citizens led to a widespread atomization, not the “big happy family” mentality that one would see in works of socialist realist art (or in films such as Circus). During the lecture, I thought at first that this seemed counter-intuitive to communist ideology: in a communist state, isn’t cooperation between the citizens an issue of utmost importance, one that helps the state function as a whole? Why would the state implement policies that would turn citizens against one another?

I think the answer to this question is yes, cooperation and solidarity between citizens is a crucial component of a functioning communist state. However, that is not to say that it was a crucial component of Stalin’s incarnation of a communist state. In Soviet Russia, power came not from the people, but from the decision and policy makers who were able to control them. The citizens had no autonomy or opportunities for expression within the regime, and the hegemony of the leaders was the issue of utmost importance. Soviet Russia isn’t the only historical example of communist and utopian experimentation gone awry – another example that was manifesting at roughly the same time was communist China. However, whereas the Chinese system was fraught with inefficiencies that resulted in disasters such as the 1954 famine that killed millions, Soviet policies seem to me to be more deliberate, brutal, and calculated in their intent to control their population. As the semester goes on, I’ll be interested to see how the Soviets came to terms with their history and the tragedies of the Stalin period.

After our joint class today, I found myself reflecting on the notion of “re-education.” As a theatre major, I find it extremely that a large portion of the “academic” (for lack of a better word) structure in the camps was theatrical. For example, the prisoners would put on plays that they themselves wrote, always of course within the constraints of soviet political ideology.

In my own life experiences, theatre has been a means by which I access my education but not necessarily what I would consider to be my education in full form. I would imagine that these plays were opportunities for enormous emotional and psychological relief from the grueling lifestyle in these camps. However, it also appears to me that allowing (forcing?) prisoners to act out plays is ultimately the purest form of mental and political influence. Not only are you in prison for rejecting ideals, but you must now immerse yourself as completely in these political notions as possible. In short, you become the very thing you have been imprisoned for fighting against. I associate theatre with open mindedness and human progress, but I doubt that I would feel the same way if I learned about the deeper details concerning “Gulag theatre.”

“You are in jail for rejecting our ideals. Therefore, you have to understand them well enough to write about them, then organize them, then become them publicly.”

In Stalin’s post-war speech, we saw how he used Soviet success in WWII to prove the superiority of the Soviet system. He argues that, despite the initial assertions of foreign governments and journalists, the Soviet Union is stronger and vastly superior to capitalist nations. It is hardly surprising that Stalin would use the opportunity of Soviet success and sacrifice in the battlefield to reassert the legitimacy of the Soviet government.

In my recent readings for my American Foreign Policy class, I noted that the U.S. also used its success in WWII to justify its own way of running the state. Both in the years leading up to and during WWII, FDR faced pressure from those both within and outside of his administration to take more authoritative control of the country. During the War, however, he rejected the notion that centrally controlled economies were more efficient than laissez-faire economies, which had been a popular belief during the Depression. Instead, he was careful to avoid excessive economic centralization. When Pendleton Herring was put in charge of writing the administrative history of the War, he concluded that the avoidance of any sense of autocratic rule might have made coordinating actions and policies more difficult, it nonetheless led to more than satisfactory results.

When Stalin gave his speech, it seems doubtful it was intended to convince foreign powers that Communism was more effective.  The speech was more intended to simply bolster the spirits of the Soviet people.