Abstract

Student unrest of 1956 in Soviet universities is examined based on the example of the Ural State University and the Ural Polytechnic Institute in Sverdlovsk. Student attitudes are analyzed in terms of social and critical thinking, and the reaction of authorities — in light of the policy towards the intelligentsia. The theoretical and methodological frame of analysis is constructivism, with emphasis put on aspects of bilateral, reciprocal design and temporality. The empirical base consists of documents from the collections of the Documentation Centre of the Social Institutions of Sverdlovsk Region, the University Museum, as well as materials from local and national press. The mid 1950’s were marked by a radical revision of the limits of acceptable criticism, which was unfolding until the end of 1956. Unorthodox activity was not regarded as seditious up until a point. The gap, interval between the original action and the resulting stigmatizing mark shows how such a notion crystallized. At some point it seemed as if you could criticize everyone and everything. It is shown that the most crucial effect was produced not by the theme of student statements but rather by a mismatch in the magnitude of the subjects and objects of public criticism. The position of authorities was to depoliticize student activity, while using such a relatively new course as pathologizing objectification: the younger generation was treated as a bearer of specific problems requiring special attention. “Labor education” with emphasis on hard physical labor was used as the universal lifesaver. Sundays at construction sites, hedgehog-fit visits to farms, as well as sending expelled students to factories inform the phenomenon of organic intellectuals “on the contrary” (in the words of A. Gramsci and N. Savelyeva). At the same time, the pragmatic benefits of resolving to admit to universities only those who had sufficient work experience was not reduced to disposing of students’ “unhealthy moods”, but rather “postponement” of higher education was to attract the youngsters to the virgin lands and construction sites. Students themselves insisted on the political connotations of their actions. The desire of the young generation to “catch the winds of history in their sails” was gradually accumulated in the concept of romance, which had yet to displace the patriotism and heroism that prevailed within the ideological orientations and the official rhetoric of the 50’s.

Highlights

  • Целью настоящей статьи является описание студенческого «брожения» в иной перспективе: общей теоретико-методологической рамкой служит социальный конструкционизм в духе П

  • Рассматривая ситуацию во всей стране, сосредоточим внимание на Свердловске, где студенческие выступления были одними из самых заметных, — чтобы увидеть события крупным планом

  • Лиля (Цецилия) Полонская 1935 г. р. поступила на филфак Уральского университета (УрГУ) в 1952 г. и едва не была отчислена с первого же курса, когда в комитет комсомола, партбюро и деканат попал ее личный дневник

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Целью настоящей статьи является описание студенческого «брожения» в иной перспективе: общей теоретико-методологической рамкой служит социальный конструкционизм в духе П. Промежуток между исходными действиями и последующим клеймом показывает, как происходила кристаллизация оценки: в какойто момент казалось, что критиковать можно всем и все. Говоря о событиях в Свердловске, обычно выделяют крамольные собрания и журналы в этих двух вузах, тем более что упоминания о них вошли в «клеймящие» документы всех уровней, вплоть до знаменитого закрытого письма ЦК КПСС «Об усилении политической работы парторганизаций в массах и пресечении вылазок антисоветских, враждебных элементов» от 19 декабря 1956 г.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call