{"id":107,"date":"2017-10-05T22:43:54","date_gmt":"2017-10-05T21:43:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/?p=107"},"modified":"2017-11-21T16:43:28","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T16:43:28","slug":"malte-rolf-soviet-modernity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/2017\/10\/05\/malte-rolf-soviet-modernity\/","title":{"rendered":"Malte Rolf explores postwar Soviet visions of modernity"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the third paper to be hosted this semester, the Centre was pleased to welcome Malte Rolf (Otto-Friedrich Universit\u00e4t, Bamberg), who spoke on \u201c\u2018Limits to Growth\u2019 in Soviet Perspective: Critical Discourses on Modernity in the USSR during the 1960s and \u201870s\u201d. You can listen to a recording of the talk below or read\u00a0<\/em>Calum Aikman’s report – or do both!<\/em><\/p>\n[audiomack src=”https:\/\/audiomack.com\/song\/csmch-edinburgh\/malte-rolf-talks-about-soviet-visions-of-modernity-3102017″]\n

Malte Rolf comes originally from the field of late Russian Imperial History, but more recently he has concentrated on the history of the Soviet Union during its twilight years, with a particular focus on \u2018untangling\u2019 popular understandings of the Cold War by examining hitherto unexplored ideas and approaches. In his paper, Rolf analysed the role played by Soviet critics of the prevailing culture of modernity, and their pursuit of an alternative model \u2013 which Rolf defines as a \u2018reflective modernity\u2019 \u2013 that managed to gain ground even under state socialism.<\/p>\n

Rolf began by focusing on the legacy of Andrei Sakharov, the celebrated nuclear physicist whose worries over his country\u2019s future direction provoked him into publishing Reflections on the Future<\/em> \u2013 now simply known as his \u2018Memorandum\u2019 \u2013 in 1968. In it Sakharov argued that although one could not stop industrial development there had to be a reassessment of how natural resources were used; placidly obeying the diktats of \u2018exploitative\u2019 bureaucracy was no longer an option. He maintained that science was necessary if further abuses were to be halted, calling for the regulation of industrial growth and the use of technical innovations to curb \u2018expansionism\u2019. The eyes of the State, however, were caught not so much by these assertions but by Sakharov\u2019s criticism of intellectual repression, which he dubbed \u2018Restalinisation\u2019. Published shortly after the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Soviet troops, the Memorandum acted as a pretext for the Kremlin to push Sakharov out to the political margins, where he was radicalised still further \u2013 so much so that by the mid-1970s he was feted in the West as a leading Russian dissident, with a message that had widened far beyond its initial premises to embrace themes such as civil rights and democratisation.<\/p>\n

As Rolf pointed out, Sakharov\u2019s perspective was influenced by already existing Western critiques, such as The Limits to Growth,\u00a0<\/em>a book published in 1972 by the globalist think-tank The Club of Rome, which sought to explore how governments could develop strategies for growth in a world of finite resources\u00a0(and which was published in Russian on the \u2018grey market\u2019). These inspired an increasingly diverse array of activists to echo Sakharov\u2019s dissatisfaction with the \u2018soulless modernity\u2019 of Soviet culture. To show how this manifested itself in practice, Rolf cited the flourishing of architectural preservation in the late-1970s, whose protagonists saw themselves as a part of a wider phenomenon that would complement existing ecological concerns by cherishing the country\u2019s cultural heritage.<\/p>\n

Much of their activities centred on Leningrad and the Baltic cities; Rolf focused in particular on the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, where local preservationists were campaigning to stop the construction of a motorway in the city centre. Architects, city planners, art historians and conservators, together with writers, artists and other intellectuals \u2013 many already doubtful about Soviet plans for ever-increasing economic growth \u2013 jumped in to save their historic districts from bureaucratic vandalism, creating a broad grassroots movement in the process. After a long struggle the protesters were successful: a bureau for the protection of historical monuments was created in 1979 to stop future destruction, followed in the era of Perestroika<\/em> by the cancellation of the planned motorway altogether.<\/p>\n

In Lithuania, much of the hostility towards modernity reflected a wider dislike of Soviet repression and encroaching \u2018Russification\u2019. Elsewhere in the USSR, the impetus for change focused on the deficiencies and \u2018inhospitality\u2019 of urban renewal schemes, modern architecture and state planning. Rolf showed how these ideas were disseminated by describing the popular success of the 1975 film comedy Ironiya sudby<\/em> (\u2018The Irony of Fate\u2019), still celebrated today in the former Soviet republics for its wry commentary on the sterility of Soviet \u2018block\u2019 housing and the uniform, characterless atmosphere it created. Again, this reflected similar phenomena taking place in capitalist societies \u2013 Rolf mentioned developments in his own home town of Bremen \u2013 and many activists were more than willing to point to developments happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain as a means of advancing their case.<\/p>\n

Rolf reminded his audience that these critical discourses took place under the auspices of state socialism, a situation that led to many paradoxes and surprises. On the one hand, the obvious scepticism many critics had for the \u2018building of socialism\u2019 did not go unnoticed by the Kremlin, which reacted in a predictable manner (although, as the example of Sakharov showed, their attempts at repression often provoked yet more dissidence). However, Rolf was at pains to stress that the underlying situation was far more complex than this: even during the Brezhnev regime, he claimed, aspects of the state apparatus were willing to re-evaluate their own assumptions, prompting a frequently revisionist attitude to urban development. Thus in the 1970s a number of protection zones were created, while the state-sponsored All-Russian Society for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments \u2013 which counted 10 million members by the 1980s \u2013 spent 60 million roubles on preserving 3000 monuments. At the same time, as Soviet culture grew increasingly nostalgic for the folk cultures and traditions of yesteryear, so many state scientific institutions were calling for the protection of nature in the face of aggressive economic expansion. Even Leonid Brezhnev was sufficiently inspired to proclaim himself the Soviet Union\u2019s first \u2018environmentalist\u2019 General Secretary (this fact prompted some raised eyebrows from members of the audience).<\/p>\n

What accelerated these developments even further was the role of Soviet critics of modernity as active participants in global and intellectual debates, rather than as mere \u2018importers\u2019 of Western arguments. Sakharov was again the leading tribune, but accompanying him were scores of less-noted pioneers: Rolf cited people such as Viktor Kovda, a soil scientist whose pioneering work led to his appointment as director of the science department at UNESCO, and Vytautas Landsbergis-\u017demkalnis, a Lithuanian architect trained in modernism at Paris, who was at the forefront of the architectural preservation movement in Vilnius in the 1970s. Rolf used these examples to conclude his paper by arguing that the study of these developments should take place from a \u2018transnational perspective\u2019.<\/p>\n

In his commentary, Iain Lauchlan (University of Edinburgh) noted that the disintegration of urban life is an important theme in the history of the 1970s \u2013 British cities such as Coventry and Manchester, he suggested, endured similar problems to Soviet ones. He felt that in Russia there was an understanding of the divisions between rural and urban life; the latter had historically not even been seen as \u2018permanent\u2019, but Soviet revolutionaries fervently believed that the countryside was inherently reactionary and that cities were \u2018the future\u2019. Lauchlan also wondered if many of the problems Rolf mentioned were cyclical, pointing to waves of \u2018progress\u2019 and \u2018reaction\u2019 in Russian architectural circles throughout the twentieth century. Audience members also showed their appreciation of Rolf\u2019s ideas, but managed to bring their own interpretations to the table, emphasising the existence of several competing discourses and the failure of some preservationist movements, and the need to look further into how the critics of modernity were viewed from a political standpoint.<\/p>\n

Calum Aikman is a PhD student in History. His research mostly focuses on twentieth-century British and Scottish politics, trade union history and the fortunes of the Labour Party in the post-war era. His thesis is on the political thought of the Labour Party’s ‘revisionist’ right wing in the 1970s. He is a member of the CSMCH steering committee.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the third paper to be hosted this semester, the Centre was pleased to welcome Malte Rolf (Otto-Friedrich Universit\u00e4t, Bamberg), who spoke on \u201c\u2018Limits to Growth\u2019 in Soviet Perspective: Critical Discourses on Modernity in the USSR during the 1960s and \u201870s\u201d. You can listen to a recording of the talk below or read\u00a0Calum Aikman’s report … Continue reading Malte Rolf explores postwar Soviet visions of modernity<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-events","category-podcasts-and-videos"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":208,"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107\/revisions\/208"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/research.shca.ed.ac.uk\/csmch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}