Abstract
Keywords
In her compelling work Svetla Koleva looks back at the history of sociology in Central and Eastern Europe to contemplate the legacy of disciplinary practice under socialism after the object of its study no longer exists. Her complex questions invite the reader to revisit familiar categorizations as part of the necessary evaluation of socialist experience, on the one hand, and also of the professional development of sociology in that geographic space and time, on the other. Can valid scientific knowledge be generated in a society dominated by a specific ideological mandate? How are the boundaries of professional practice negotiated within a system singularly focused on a social project of building a new and previously unknown type of social structure? How can scientific dialogue develop in the absence of pluralistic political structures? What are the goals and the responsibilities of sociologists in such system? How should they define the disciplinary project of sociology in a socialist society that serves both as an object and a context of research?
As we follow Koleva’s carefully crafted narrative, the missing pieces in our understanding of the past history of sociological practice in the Soviet bloc fall into place. Although the premise of the book is to assess this often-discounted part of professional development of sociology by ‘its own measure’ (p. xi), the author admits the difficulty of retaining an objective view of the past as our current conceptions often contradict the prevailing values of the time. Indeed, she points out that even the title’s categorization of the Soviet system as totalitarian was applied retroactively and was not perceived this way at the time. She settles on the goal of understanding rather than justifying or rejecting the cognitive value of Soviet sociology in order to enrich the collective memory of our discipline. This self-reflection helps to comprehend the ways the past continues to live in the present as the participants constitute the core of the active professionals in the post-Soviet countries who mold future generations of sociologists through education, research, and practice.
The study is conducted from a favorable vantage point. Twenty-five years after the fall of Socialism on the European continent give sufficient distance for revisiting its postwar development while the events are still in the living memory. Koleva capitalizes on that by collecting data in the interviews with her colleagues across six different countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the USSR) to complement information gathered from scientific publications or accounts of concurrent political and professional events. In fact, one of the main strengths of the book is that it taps into the accounts of contemporaries, comparing their experiences and looking for the common among the nationally specific. The wide geographic scope adds value to the investigation providing a unique view, both comparative and longitudinal in nature. This allows Koleva to observe the gradual shifts in the system and their reverberations throughout professional practice, alternatively hindering or promoting the development of sociology in the region. She is ever mindful of the constant interplay of politics – the context – and social sciences, and the roles of sociology as an observer and an influencer of reality through social action and the framing of public discourse.
As the political system oscillates between the periods of liberalization and tighter control it generates the corresponding waves of growth or adaptation. Koleva identifies five distinct institutional cycles in the development of sociology: institutional reanimation in the early postwar years followed by four alternating stages of institutional mimicry and institutional expansion. The points of change are strongly associated with political developments, with liberalization waves often emanating from the USSR, in particular under Khrushchev’s and Gorbachev’s leadership. Despite these cycles of favorability and discouragement sociology manages to complete its institutionalization process and achieve not only cognitive independence but an extensive degree of professional autonomy within an ideologically defined system. The emphasis on empirical studies as objectively verifiable and politically neutral, the methodological rigor, and the application of Western conceptualizations help maintain high academic standards in research. The cycles of mimicry see a diversity of forms and adaptations when sociologists retreat to non-academic research centers, scientific seminars, or fields of practice expanding their conceptual originality, critical reflexivity, and nontraditional professional socialization grounds. In the final stage of institutional expansion sociologists take an increasingly oppositional stance in relation to political structures, even publishing officially unauthorized surveys and analyses in the underground press in an attempt to initiate change and affect public discourse.
The main takeaway from the book is that extensive zones of freedom existed under the Soviet system and the boundaries of the possible were much wider than previously thought. It highlights the fundamental misunderstanding in the West about the extent of Soviet control which was far from uniform and also expanded and contracted over time. Koleva questions the oversimplified Western-centric interpretive model which allots a subordinate role to post-Soviet sociologists. She maintains that despite restrictions sociologists in Central and Eastern Europe produced ‘conceptions capable of explaining the historical specificity of society in their times’ (p. 246). The discipline was practiced with ethical standards and without government restraint toward the end of the existence of the political system. The study underscores the complexity of Socialist reality and concludes that ‘by referring itself to universality, scientific knowledge transcends the determinants of its own society and enables individuals and society to transform the conditions that determine their history’ (p. 247).
Although not all developments in the region fall neatly into the model the author advocates (notably, sociology in Bulgaria and Hungary enjoyed state support during the repeat mimicry stage), the proposed cycle progression seems conceptually valid and theoretically useful. The second period of mimicry appears to be more permissive, less uniform, and therefore somewhat less convincing. It would be interesting to see if similar developmental cycles occurred in other Soviet European countries that were left outside the scope of the current analysis. Also excluded by the temporal limits of the study is a more detailed treatment of Russian sociology prior to 1945, the society with the longest reign of Socialism and a tradition of sociological practice that goes back to the prerevolutionary era. One point that manifests itself strongly in the book is a surprising level of connections between East and West which questions the established narrative of the broken dialogue and ideological isolation of Soviet science. The author documents numerous ties with Western sociology which were maintained during the Soviet period through mutual projects, publications, conference attendance, and close contact with the International Sociological Association starting in the early 1950s. Even during less hospitable periods Western works were published in the Soviet Union, placed in libraries, disseminated throughout the Soviet space, while divergent theories were discussed in a form of critique or history review. Overall, Koleva delivers a more nuanced view of sociological practice in Central and Eastern European countries as a ‘variant’ of disciplinary development which balances the retroactive evaluations with contemporary insider accounts.
There is a lot to like in this book. Its wide geographic and temporal scope and qualitatively sourced data give plenty of new information to comparative scholars and sovietologists. The researchers of professionalization will discover an interesting case-study of institutionalization of sociology under the unique constraints of the system. Political sociologists will find a fascinating account of the interplay of political events and institutions of power with scientific knowledge production in their continued dance of mutual dependency and impacts. Students in humanist sociology will rejoice at seeing new evidence of human ability to assert their will, autonomy, independence, and gain ground against an oppressive system, while maintaining ethical standards under adverse circumstances. More importantly, this book serves a broader role of documenting past experiences of national sociologies in the respective countries and in reintegrating their practice into the collective history of world sociology in the 20th century.