"The Communal Experience": The Role of Groups in Geoffrey Hosking's Understanding of Russian Society

Abstract

Just over decade ago, late Richard Stites--who, like Geoffrey Hosking, had deep familiarity with history both before and after 1917 divide--published an article describing paradoxical tendency of collectives to cram themselves into tiny corners of enormous spaces. As he observed, After half-dozen years of perestroika and almost decade of political freedom and market, I for one am persuaded that not all peculiarities of spatial and work culture are attributable solely to Soviet socialism. Perhaps historians and literary scholars will someday uncover deeper layers. (1) Richard Stites's own concern with discrete phenomena in history (notably, women's movement and other areas of utopian socialism and cultural production, from serf theaters to estrada of Brezhnev days) meant that uncovering deeper layers was marginal to his work. For Geoffrey Hosking, in contrast, the peculiarities of culture--or rather, specificities, to use less loaded term--have been an abiding preoccupation. There may be biographical considerations here. Geoffrey Hosking (henceforth GH, to avoid overfamiliarity of first name alone and officiousness of surname) began his academic career studying modern languages, subject that in traditional British universities used to (and in some, such as mine, still does) emphasize specificity of culture in comparative perspective. This has left traces in several characteristics of GH's intellectual background. The first is his wide of culture in broadest sense. It is hard to think of anyone whose work has had comparable impact across range of disciplines constituting Russian studies. The second inheritance of GH's first specialization is his excellent command of at least three major European languages. GH's of French and German goes long way beyond reading knowledge to which many of us can lay claim. He can present papers and argue case in both languages. As for his Russian, I remember being told by writer Zinovy Zinik, producer in BBC's Service, that GH was only British contributor whose radio performances never had to be edited before being broadcast. This nearnative fluency, alongside his detailed command of history over three centuries, and his capacity to pose large questions (as in his recent project on historical role of trust in culture), helps explain his (again highly unusual) level of authority in Russia itself. Immersion in culture also enabled GH to grasp some factors in volatile period of transition more quickly than most Westerners. While many (Rogers Brubaker, for example) were speaking of nationalism in dog that didn't bark terms, GH was already, in 1990, describing Russia as a nation traumatized by its own past: Standing in modern Soviet street, I sometimes feel as if I were in society afflicted by communal amnesia. (2) Rulers and Victims: The Russians in Soviet Union was brilliant examination of some of underlying social tensions in vanished empire (take, for instance, comments offsetting institutionalized patronage, i.e., personalization of transactions and welfare compact, which assumes more diffuse understanding of how benefits are dispersed). (3) But it also captured certain central points in national myth, particularly neo-Slavophile belief in self-sacrifice and exploitation that consistently colored dissemination of Soviet ideal. However, although this is what Russians call a jubilee, and encomium is appropriate, most sincere tribute to intellectual comradeship is to argue with someone's ideas. In these brief remarks, I will take GH to task on one particular point--not because it is necessarily representative in an overall sense of large and important body of work that he has created, but because it relates to issues that are widely debated in studies at moment. …