In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

308 Рецензии/Reviews Sergei GLEBOV В семье единой: национальная политика партии большевиков и ее осуществление на Северо-Западе России в 1920 – 1950-е годы / Под ред. Тимо Вихавайнена и Ирины Такала. Петрозаводск: Изд-во Пе- трозаводского государственного университета, 1998. 289 с. авторы которой проливают свет на мировые научные достижения выходцев из России, в том числе лауреатов Нобелевской премии. Сегодня, восемь лет спустя после выхода первого тома, мож- но констатировать, что сборники серии ЕБКРЗ, значительно по- полнившие источниковую базу и историографию исследований о Российской эмиграции, одновре- менно вызвали к жизни целый ряд других изданий, способствовали реализации целого ряда между- народных проектов и проведению конференций, созданию нового исследовательского центра. Из факта историографического они превратились в явление истории и культуры Зарубежья. Recent academic exchanges that became possible after the fall of the Iron Curtain continue to yield significant results in scholarly research and publications. V Sem’e Edinoi..., a book edited by Timo Vihavainen (Finland) and Irina Takala (Russia, Karelia), is one of these results. An international project aimed at developing a fresh glimpse of the national policy of the Soviet Communist party in the North-Western Region of the USSR in the context of its general policy toward nationalities , V Sem’e edinoi... contains contributions by scholars from Finland , Russia (Petrozavodsk and St. Petersburg) and France. Scholarly inquiry into nationalities policies in the former Soviet Union has undergone a true revival during the recent decade. Shaking off ideological burdens of the Cold War era, researchers have been able to approach issues of formation and implementation of these policies with better empirical precision and from the perspective of open methodological debate. Departing from the work of Richard Pipes, whose Formation of The Soviet Union, for all the criticisms expressed about this text, remains an important standard of scholarly inquiry, today’s historians have a privilege of using theoretical debate on nationalism as a source of inspiration as well.1 1 Richard Pipes. Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism 19171923 . Cambridge, Mass., 1964. 309 Ab Imperio, 1/2000 for an understanding of the high rate of assimilation of the Karelians that would pay more attention not only to the evil policies of the Central Committee (although, obviously, he does not deny a degree of manipulation by the party top policy-makers) but, also, to the fact that Karelians have been envisioned both officially within the USSR and by Finland as part of the Finnish nation while they themselves displayed little or no sense of national identification. This weakness of the Karelian national consciousness, coupled with the presence of the Finnish element that was more developed in terms of this consciousness and could rely on the example of Finnish independent statehood, was at the core of the national processes and their dynamics. Contingency and the personality factor played their role as well: Lenin’s personal interest and energetic activity of a Finnish communist Giulling secured the creation of the Finnish Labor Commune. One can wonder if it would be productive, from the theoretical point of view, to apply Rogers Brubaker’s model of national minority (Karelians), external national Homeland (claims by Finland) and nationalizing state (USSR in some periods of its development) to this situation.2 Obviously, Brubaker’s Methodological innovations in history, such as cultural approaches, “history from below” or historical sociology helped researchers of nationalities policy in the former USSR move away from a “masterplan ” narrative that implies cold, rational and conscious policy realization by the Bolsheviks, to a more balanced and nuanced account of events in the first half of the Soviet era. Such matters as activities of local élites or policies developed and defended by scholars (ethnographers , linguists, educators) receive more attention and their exploration serve to add important dimensions to our understanding of the very complicated and vulnerable question of early Soviet nationalities policy. It is even more pleasant to read a book published in Russian and for the Russian academic audience that takes into account both research done inside the country and rich material available from the world scholarship. Timo Vihavainen’s introduction into the problem of nationalities policies in the North-Western Region of the USSR helps to place local problems and particularities into a more theoretically framed account, in which the work by Miroslav Hroch seemingly plays an important role. Vihavainen argues 2 Rogers Brubaker. Nationalism Reframed: National Minorities, Nationalizing States, and External Homelands in the New Europe. Budapest, 1995. 310 Рецензии/Reviews highly theoretical approach would have to be modified to be used in the context of the USSR before World War II. Vihavainen has also written the first article in the book, “Natsional’naia Politika VKP(b)/ KPSS v 1920-e – 1950-e gody i sud’by karel’skoi i finskoi natsional’nostei.” Sketching a brief history of “korenizatsia”, the author focuses on the role of linguistics in policy formation. Particularly interesting is his...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 308-312
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.