Stalin's government received information about the political and economic situation in the countryside through the reports prepared by the security service VChK-OGPU-NKVD. This article reveals that these reports (svodkas in Russian) strain to rhetorically construct a social classification of the peasantry by dividing it into the kulaks (wealthy peasants hostile to Soviet power), the bednyaks (poor peasants supporting Soviet power), and the serednyaks (peasants of average means with uncertain attitudes to the regime). The svodkas persuaded their audience—the secret police and the governments—of the reality of this tripartite classification. This persuasion derived from their massiveness, secretiveness, and mixture of ideological and technical language. Since these conditions inhere in modern governmental, technical, and scientific discourse, the writers for these fields should be aware that when they engage in constructing order through classification, they face temptations of what Kenneth Burke calls rhetoric of hierarchy with its scapegoat principle.
HeathR. (1986). Realism and relativism: A perspective on Kenneth Burke. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
16.
HoffmannD. L. (2000). European modernity and Soviet socialism. In HoffmannD. L. & KotsonisY. (Eds.), Russian modernity: Politics, knowledge, practice (pp. 245–260). New York, NY: St. Martin's.
17.
JoravskyD. (1970). The Lysenko affair. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
KatzS. B. (2004). The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the Holocaust. In Johnson-EiolaJ. & SelberS. A. (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 195–210). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
KinneavyJ. E. (1997). The basic aims of discourse. In VillanuevaV.Jr. (Ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader (pp. 107–117). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
20.
KolakowskiL. (1978). Main currents of Marxism: Its rise, growth, and dissolution (Vol. 1; FallaP. S., Trans.) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
KotsonisY. (2000). Introduction: A modern paradox—Subject and citizen in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russia. In HoffmannD. L. & KotsonisY. (Eds.), Russian modernity: Politics, knowledge, practice (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: St. Martin's.
22.
MarxK., & EngelsF. (1947). The German ideology: Parts I & III. New York, NY: International Publishers.
23.
MacNealyM. S. (1999). Strategies for empirical research in writing. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
24.
McCarthyP. M.WatanabeS., & LamkinT. A. (2012). The Gramulator: A tool to identify differential linguistic features of correlative text types. In McCarthyP. M. & Boonthum-DeneckeC. (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation and resolution (pp. 312–333). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
25.
McGeeM. C. (1975). In search of “the people”: A rhetorical alternative. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61(3), 235–249.
Roll-HansenN. (2005). The Lysenko effect: The politics of science. Amherst, NY: Humanity.
30.
ScottJ. S. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
StancheviciD. (2012). Stalinist genetics: The constitutional rhetoric of T. D. Lysenko. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
32.
VinogradovV. (2000). Informatsionnye materialy OGPU za 1923–1929 gg. In BerelovichA. & DanilovV. (Eds.), Sovetskaya derevnya glazami VChK-OGPU-NKVD, 1918–1939 (Vol. 2; pp. 25–53). Moscow, Russia: ROSSPEN.
33.
WeinerA. (1999, October). Nature, nurture, and memory in a socialist utopia: Delineating the Soviet socio-ethnic body in the age of socialism. The American Historical Review, 104(4), 1114–1155.
