Modernization in Russia since 1900 by Markku Kangaspuro , Jeremy Smith (review)

Abstract

374 SEER, 87, 2, APRIL 200g Kangaspuro,Markkuand Smith, Jeremy(eds).Modernization in Russiasince 1 goo. StudiaFennica:Histórica, 12.Finnish Literature Society, Helsinki, 2006. 331pp. Illustrations. Tables. Figures.Notes.Bibliography. €31.00 (paperback). As the editorspoint out in theirintroduction, modernization in Russian history hasassumedvariousguises. Imitating, catching upwithandovertaking theWesthas been embeddedintoRussianpoliticalculturesincePeterthe Great,whileidealizedvisionsofsuper-modernized outcomeshave also been influential, especiallyduringthe twentieth century. Reason and Idealism might be seenas contesting thecontent ofRussianmodernization. The conceptmusttherefore be flexible and capacious.As a result, itis sometimes a helpful guide,sometimes a vaguemaster. In thisvolume, modernization isthe structuring motif fora discussion ofaspectsofRussiafrom 1900tothepresent, bringing together sixteen valuablecontributions bymostly Finnish and British scholars. These essayscoverhistory, social scienceand, in one instance,literary studies.Only one contribution takesforitssubjecttheperiodbefore1917, elevenare substantially focused on theSovietUnion,and fourare concerned mainly withthepost-Soviet years.Thismulti-disciplinary approach,therefore, allowsthe readerto considerthe relevanceof 'modernization' acrossthe conventional chronological limits of1917 and 1991.The essays aredivided into twosections, 'perspectives' and 'case studies'. In thefirst section, PeterGatrell writes on theusesand impacts ofmodernization, primarily on theeconomy, before1917.MarkkuKangaspurodiscusses'The BolshevikModernization Project', alsoinquitegeneral terms. R. W. Daviesconsiders themodernization oftheSovietinterwar economy, MarkB. Taugeranalyses themodernization of agriculture in the SovietUnion, Sari-AutioSarasmo coversthe uses of borrowing fromtheWestin themodernization oftheSovieteconomy, and MelanieHicdiscusses theimpactofmodernization on Sovietwomen.David Lane's essayconcerns themodernization ofsocialstructures and stratifications during latesocialism, whiletwoothereminent socialscientists, PhilipHanson and RichardSakwa,writerespectively on thepost-Soviet economyand its political leadership. In thecase studies ofthesecondsection, Tomi Huttenen discussesmontageas an agentforthepost-revolutionary modernization of Russianculture; Christopher Williams presents hisrecent research on Russian health care, especiallyin the inter-war period;JeremySmith provides new insights intoKhrushchev's educationpolicy;whilethe essaysof Katri Pynnöniemi and Linda Trautmanfocuson different aspectsofSoviettransportpolicy . Two further essays inthecasestudy section explorecontemporary concerns: Stefanie Harteron themodernization ofpublicadministration, and JulianCooperon theInternet. This is a formidable scope,and theeditors have succeededin assembling a greatdeal ofpertinent material, written byan impressive line-upofprominentscholars .Giventhebias towardsthe Sovietperiod,historical studyis at the heartof the collection, so the book is perhapsespeciallyusefulfor historians. Some of the historical essayspresentimportant new workon under-researched areas, such as Smithon Khrushchev's educationpolicy. Othersdisplay accumulated expertise, refracted through theprism ofmodernization ;examplesincludeDavies on the economy,Tauger on agriculture reviews 375 and Die on women.The collection focusesprimarily on politicaland socioeconomicsubjects , whichis entirely legitimate in a studyofmodernization, butdoes notreallyengagewithcultural history, either in content or in conceptualmethod . Perhapsas a consequence, thevolumedoesnotquiteexplain how and whyitsorganizing conceptof modernization can standalongside the 'modernity' thesisof neo-totalitarian scholarship, or challengethe neotraditionalist arguments ofa relatedbodyofwork,eventhoughtheessaysof Gatrell, Kangaspuroand Pynnöniemi interrogate theconceptofmodernizationinparticularly interesting ways.In a fewoftheessays, theconceptseems to be an argumentative add-on,rather thana convincingly integral element deriving from theevidence.Despitethisreservation, thebookis ablyedited by Smithand Kangaspuro,and the collectionoverallmakesan engaging case, on itsown terms, foritsguidingprinciple. Modernization remainsan essential highway and yeta sometimes imprecise routeintoinvestigations of Russianhistory (andRussianstudies moregenerally), and thisbook'svaluable and interesting essayswill accordingly be read withprofit and occasional scepticism byundergraduates and specialist scholars alike. UCL SSEES Mark B. Smith Turda, Marius and Weindling, Paul J. (eds). BloodandHomeland: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Centraland Southeast Europe1900-194.0. Central EuropeanUniversity Press,Budapestand New York,2007.x + 467 pp. Map. Illustrations. Notes.Bibliography. Index.£13.95(paperback). World War One increasedsocial expectations throughout Europe. It also raisedinterest ineugenics - theimprovement ofthehumanspecies, notonly through improved publichealthbytheelimination ofdiseasesliketyphus, but through improvement of thegeneticstockby selective breeding.Since the subjectwas forbidden underCommunism, the relevantarchiveshave only recently been opened,so thisvolumeadds muchto our knowledge ofhow eugenicideasand practice developedinCentralEuropeand theBalkans.We knowthatthestory endedinthemasskilling ofgypsies, thementally subnormal and sixmillion Jews,and manyassumethattheprocesswas inevitable. Notso.Within theeugenics movement emotional romanticism competed with conventional medicine and enlightened traditions. Indeed,thelatter prevailed untilthe 1930swhendespairgenerated by theGreatDepressionled to the triumph ofprejudiceoverscience,and thennoteverywhere. Zoologists,psychologists, anthropologists and archaeologists, as well as medicalresearchers helpedto developeugenicthinking; and Germanyand Austriaexertedthe mostpowerful influences. As Turda pointsout in the introduction to thiscollection ofpapers,professional eugenicists werelargely dependenton the stateforfunding, and so came to servenation-building agendas.'Defining thenation',therefore, 'becamesynonymous with justifying thedomination ofa givenethnicmajority', and itwas notlongbeforesome eugenicists werearguing that'genetically inferior individuals' shouldbe eliminatedto prevent 'thedegeneration ofthenation'.Geneticsciencewas as yet in itsinfancy, leavingspace forideasbased on popularideology. Oftensuch ...