Symbols and Legitimacy in Soviet Politics

Abstract

Symbols and Legitimacy in Soviet Politics analyses the way in which Soviet symbolism and ritual changed from the regime's birth in 1917 to its fall in 1991. Graeme Gill focuses on the symbolism in party policy and leaders' speeches, artwork and political posters, and urban redevelopment, and on ritual in the political system. He shows how this symbolism and ritual were worked into a dominant metanarrative which underpinned Soviet political development. Gill also shows how, in each of these spheres, the images changed both over the life of the regime and during particular stages: the Leninist era metanarrative differed from that of the Stalin period, which differed from that of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev periods, which was, in turn, changed significantly under Gorbachev. In charting this development, the book lays bare the dynamics of the Soviet regime and a major reason for its fall.

Exceptions to Authoritarianism? Variegated sovereignty and ethno-nationalism in a Siberian resource frontier

“…Gazprom is, however, not a traditional corporate player and its relationship with the political elite is ambiguous. In much of the literature (Sakwa 2004;Goldman 2008;Gill 2011), Gazprom is conceptualized as a state-controlled corporation that supports the central state and its agendas, similar to how it operated during the Soviet Union when it was still the Soviet Ministry of the Gas Industry. Comaroff and Comaroff (2009, 130-135), for example, frame Gazprom as an instrument of the Kremlin that actively promotes those national identities favored by the Kremlin.…”

Trust and Society: Suggestions for Further Development of Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Trust

“…The Soviet Union was born of a symbolic vision of a state in the becoming (see Gill ). It followed that the efficiency and functionality of social institutions were bound to the realization of this future state (see Rigby, Brown, and Reddaway ), and the self‐validation of confidence was based on a symbolic complex of making the future available in the present (Holmes ).…”

“…The self‐validation of system trust became ever more entwined with the performance of state officials ( trust in cadres was Brezhnev's catchphrase for this). “‘Trust in cadres’ meant not only trust in the individual officials themselves, but in the system in which they worked” (Gill :191) as officials and system became completely intertwined. As a consequence, any wrongdoing by those officials was seen as a failure of the system, and an inefficient functioning of the system could not be compensated for by new political faces.…”

Apmaldījušies brīvībā: anomija mūsdienu Latvijā

“…30. gados un kurā iekļauto svētku svinēšana bija būtiska valsts pārvaldes sastāvdaļa, iedzīvotāju lojalitātes kontroles instruments un varas leģitimitātes publiskā demonstrācija (skat. Lane, 1981;Gill, 2011;Rolf, 2013). Padomju Savienībā svētku organizēšana un svinēšana bija labi institucionalizēta, menedžēta, finansēta un kontrolēta.…”