2000
DOI: 10.1353/kri.2008.0143
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Speaking Out: Languages of Affirmation and Dissent in Stalinist Russia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
5

Year Published

2005
2005
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
5
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“… The debate among historians pits Fitzpatrick (1999), arguing against the earlier totalitarian explanation of the USSR and therefore emphasizing heterogeneity and resistance, against the more recent work of Hellbeck (2000) and Hellbeck and Halfin (2002). Hellbeck and Halfin insist that individual subjectivity must be seen as the product of history, and that citizens in the 1930s had no choice but to think in Soviet categories for no others were available to them. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“… The debate among historians pits Fitzpatrick (1999), arguing against the earlier totalitarian explanation of the USSR and therefore emphasizing heterogeneity and resistance, against the more recent work of Hellbeck (2000) and Hellbeck and Halfin (2002). Hellbeck and Halfin insist that individual subjectivity must be seen as the product of history, and that citizens in the 1930s had no choice but to think in Soviet categories for no others were available to them. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Johdonmukainen julkista keskustelua hallitseva ja sitä myötä kollektiivista identiteettiä ohjaava ideologinen sävy ei voikaan olla vaikuttamatta lukija-ja kirjoittajakuntaan (ks. Hellbeck 2000;Bunn 2015, 38-41). 1930luvun loppua kohden sensuuri ja itsesensuuri äityivät yhä vahvemmiksi poliittisten puhdistusten kiihtyessä (Choldin et al 1989).…”
Section: Median Luonteesta Neuvostoliitossaunclassified
“…This process became a matter of scholarly controversy when Jochen Hellbeck criticized those whose work relied heavily on secret police svodki, which he noted had an inbuilt bias toward anti-Soviet activity. 66 The criticism has some validity, but needs to be understood also in terms of the lines of scholarly debate in the field at that time.…”
Section: Impact Of Expanded Access On Western Scholarship On Social Hmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This process became a matter of scholarly controversy when Jochen Hellbeck criticized those whose work relied heavily on secret police svodki, which he noted had an inbuilt bias toward anti-Soviet activity. 66 The criticism has some validity, but needs to be understood also in terms of the lines of scholarly debate in the field at that time. Challenging the older generation of social historians for their neglect of subjectivity, Stephen Kotkin and others sought to shift the focus from an assumption of popular rejection of Soviet values toward recognition that not only was acceptance of Soviet values the norm in Soviet society (as it is in most societies) but also that the creation of these values was a process involving the population, rather than being simply imposed from above.…”
Section: Impact Of Expanded Access On Western Scholarship On Social Hmentioning
confidence: 99%