CONF: DAVIS CENTER CONF. REPORT (fwd)

[Wayles Browne]

This report, originally sent to the Russian History list
by a student of ours, might be of interest to
SEELANGerS who missed the celebration. Felicitations
to the Center!

Wayles Browne, Assoc. Prof., Department of Linguistics
Morrill Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853, U.S.A.
tel. 1-607-255-0712, home 1-607-273-3009
fax 1-607-255-2044 (write FOR W. BROWNE)
e-mail ewb2 at cornell.edu

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:38:27 -0400
>From: Martin Ryle <mryle at richmond.edu>
>To: H-RUSSIA at h-net.msu.edu
>Subject: CONF: DAVIS CENTER CONF. REPORT
>
>Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 00:51:29 -0400
>From: John Wilson <jrw14 at cornell.edu>
>The Davis Center for Russian Studies Celebrates 50 Years
>
>A Report on the Conference
>
>By John Wilson, Cornell University
>
>Cambridge, Mass., May 2.  In the early years of Harvard's Russian
>Research Center, which coincided with a period of acrimonious
>anti-Communism in the United States, people routinely threw rocks
>through the center's windows until the sign identifying the building
>was removed.  But as the center celebrated its 50th anniversary today,
>the scholars who assembled to hear a series of panel discussions about
>Russian studies knew only too well that interest in things Russian,
>whether based on ardor or animosity, is flagging and has presented
>their field with an uncertain future.
>
>Reduced concern with Russian studies comes precisely at a time when the
>country and its one-time satellites figure in international business as
>never before, and when it is possible to undertake research there with
>fewer impediments of the kind imposed by the Soviet Government.
>Despite this paradox, large and established entities like the Harvard
>center and Columbia's Harriman Institute are at least financially
>secure.  The former was renamed the Kathryn W. and Shelby Cullom Davis
>Center for Russian Studies in 1996, after Kathryn Davis pledged $10
>million to its endowment.  Mrs. Davis has also recently announced a
>donation of $11 million to Wellesley College to enhance its Russian
>programs.
>
>Some two dozen presenters examined the current state of Russian studies
>in more than seven hours of discussion today, two blocks west of the
>Davis Center in an auditorium of the Science Center, a peculiarly
>constructed building which some say is supposed to be shaped like a
>camera.  The speakers were seated in front of a banner depicting the
>Davis Center's new logo, a Cyrillic "D" topped with a yellow onion
>dome.  In keeping with the interdisciplinary intentions of the center,
>the panels were not separated by field; each featured a range of
>specialists, including historians, political scientists, sociologists,
>economists, humanists, and even a journalist and a banker.
>
>Alex Inkeles (Hoover Institution), who was present at the founding of
>the Russian Research Center, acknowledged that for many, the feeling of
>excitement about Russian studies fostered by the Cold War is now "hard
>to muster."  But such an attitude is a "great mistake," he said, since
>the close of the superpower contest did not signify the end of the need
>to study Russia.  In the 1970s, some scholars believed that the
>shifting of Mr. Inkeles's research interests constituted a withdrawal
>from the Russian field, but Mr. Inkeles explained that back then he was
>spending less time studying the country's sociological makeup because
>"we began to feel we had the answers."  Two models -- totalitarianism
>and the planned economy -- which Mr. Inkeles conceded "were not perfect
>and missed some things," had provided social scientists with convenient
>ways of interpreting the Soviet Union.  Now, however, there exists no
>model of Russian society, described by Mr. Inkeles as "unpredictable
>and erratic," but this lacuna enables some rising scholar to propose a
>new design.  If the model were successful, the scholar "would be
>guaranteed a place in social history," Mr. Inkeles said.
>
>Life in contemporary Russia is very much in disarray, Stephen Holmes
>(Princeton) said, observing that there is hardly any meaningful
>relationship between the Government and the majority of the population.
>"The Government does not tyrannize the people like an elephant, but it
>pesters them like a mosquito," he said.  Many of those in possession of
>state power at all levels exist in "symbiosis" with criminal elements,
>thus creating an environment that is "anti-rule-of-law," Mr. Holmes
>said:  "Halfway-liberalism is where they want to be."  But Virginie
>Coulloudon (Harvard) recommended that contemporary developments be
>taken cautiously, since "one has to let events happen before theorizing
>about them."  The Russian Government is not utterly corrupt, she
>argued, saying that there is not one "monolithic elite," but different
>kinds of elite groups, which are "fluid categories."
>
>As Russia has changed, so too have those who pursue the study of it.
>Thane Gustafson (Georgetown), a political scientist, said that today's
>students are far less "concerned about bombs and bullets."  Instead,
>they are more likely to speak Russian and want to spend time in the
>former Soviet bloc in order to understand the region better.  It is
>time, Mr. Gustafson declared, for "Soviet studies [to] become a normal
>field."
>
>However, the political science community has been wrenched by a
>conflict between those who adhere to the "area studies" approach and
>those who classify themselves as practitioners of some theoretical
>concept, such as rational choice theory, which in Mr. Gustafson's
>words, is "now out of fashion."  Timothy Colton (Harvard), the Davis
>Center's director, said he expected "area studies" to lose the contest,
>owing to the "great, coercive pressure in comparative politics" to
>emphasize theory.  This is not a desirable outcome, in Mr. Colton's
>view, but it may be expedited by the inherent difficulty of drawing
>effective comparisons of countries primarily by means of the "area
>studies" method.  "The American Political Science Association is
>encouraging dual area competence, but we're not going to find enough
>people to do it right.  It's hard to compare Poland and Russia, for
>example," he said.
>
>The field of economics has experienced a similar reaction against "area
>studies."  Abram Bergson (Harvard) said that scholars identify
>themselves mostly by reference to broad, inclusive categories like
>micro- or macroeconomics rather than nationally-based ones like Russian
>economics, which is in a "very depressed state."  The Russian economist
>is even an "endangered species," Marshall Goldman (Wellesley & Harvard)
>said, despite the fact that it "seems to be a promising field" given
>Russia's newfound significance in world trade.  In reality, Russian
>economics is the "most troubled" economics subject at the present time,
>Mr. Goldman said, because few students studying the economics of the
>former Soviet empire possess much cultural knowledge about it.
>
>Several more speakers maintained that strong attention to culture is
>absolutely necessary in any discipline of the humanities or social
>sciences.  The historian of science Loren Graham (MIT & Harvard) said
>he steadfastly believes that a deep understanding of the context in
>which events occurred is required in his field, even though some
>scholars wonder why he feels a need to view the history of natural
>science in Russia from the perspective of "area studies."  Celeste
>Wallander (Harvard) cited the failure of nearly all "specialists" to
>predict the fall of the Berlin Wall as a consequence of the widespread
>lack of knowledge about the Soviet bloc's domestic affairs.  "It's a
>false dichotomy to choose between 'area studies' and methodology," she
>said.  Among those voicing similar opinions about the importance of
>cultural comprehension were Chrystia Freeland (Financial Times),
>Pauline Jones-Luong (Harvard), Craig Kennedy (Morgan Stanley), and John
>Schoeberlein-Engel (Harvard).
>
>In acquiring that special cultural training and then researching a
>society further, Ms. Jones-Luong, who studies Central Asian politics,
>advised against "parochialism" in scholarship.  One should not perceive
>one's particular geographical area of expertise as the "center" and
>everything else as the "periphery," she said, lamenting the marginal
>role Central Asianists and Caucasianists usually occupy in research
>centers which claim to be "Eurasian" or something more than just
>Russian in scope.
>
>Mr. Kennedy offered the audience what he called a "suggested syllabus"
>of readings all Russian specialists should study closely.  His personal
>canon consists of the following eight works:  Part One of The Origins
>of Rus' by Omeljan Pritsak (Harvard); "Muscovite Political Folkways" by
>Edward Keenan (Harvard); The Reign of Aleksei Mikhailovich by Gregory
>Kotoshikhin; Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev; The Brothers Karamazov
>by Fyodor Dostoevsky; Petersburg by Andrey Bely; The Golden Calf by
>Ilya Ilf and Eugene Petrov; and The Master and Margarita by Mikhail
>Bulgakov.  A Rhodes Scholar who holds a Harvard Ph.D. in medieval
>Russian history, Mr. Kennedy said that works such as these provided him
>with the kind of "local knowledge" that enables him to be maximally
>effective in investment banking in Russia.
>
>Foreign language skills are an essential accompaniment to the cultural
>understanding many presenters referred to above.  But too few students
>and professionals associated with Russian studies seem to possess
>extensive language abilities.  By means of illustration, Richard Pipes
>(Harvard) recalled a faculty meeting at which someone ruefully observed
>that the thorough foreign language competence required to pursue study
>of the history of Central Asia barred most students from working in
>that field.  According to Mr. Pipes, Mr. Pritsak, the professor of
>Ukrainian history whose book was recommended by Mr. Kennedy, could not
>understand why this should be the case.  "But what languages?  You
>merely need English, French, German, Russian, Turkish, Persian, and
>Chinese," Mr. Pritsak said.  "It was the most natural thing in the
>world for him to work with so many languages," Mr. Pipes concluded.
>
>James Collins (State Department) provided information on the language
>abilities of the 1,500 employees he directs in his capacity as the U.S.
>Ambassador to Russia.  One-third of them are Russian nationals, but of
>the 1,000 American citizens, 60 to 70 percent know absolutely no
>Russian.  The remainder possess varying degrees of fluency, but Mr.
>Collins declined to speculate how many might be termed completely
>fluent.  As the number of Federal agencies working out of the American
>embassy in Moscow has increased, the need for employees with background
>in Russian studies and proficiency in the Russian language has become
>particularly keen, Mr. Collins said.
>
>Ms. Freeland, the journalist, said that competency in foreign languages
>is "more important than ever before" for reporters even though so many
>people around the globe speak English.  The Financial Times, however,
>intially did not look upon her qualifications in Russian studies
>positively, she said, because it has operated under the assumption that
>in foreign countries "[British] journalists are [to be] gentlemen with
>an outsider's view."  More foreign correspondents than previously,
>though, do have some knowledge of the areas from which they report, Ms.
>Freeland said.  She added that in Russia, foreign journalists' interest
>in their assignment to cover Russia has ebbed as many no longer look
>upon the country as a "good story."  But Ms. Freeland answered this
>complaint by saying:  "In 10 years, if Russia is covered in American
>newspapers like Germany is, that'll be fabulous."
>
>Historians on the discussion panels brought up a number of contentious
>issues about Russian historical scholarship.  Mr. Keenan, the medieval
>Russian historian, speaking on the centrality of elites in Russian
>history, indicated that the formation of groups that are bound by
>kinship and secure special access to resources might be unique to
>Russia due to "the weakness of political institutions, laws, and
>structures insuring personal security" there.  While scholars of
>earlier Russian history consistently seem to be observing the
>importance of elite networks, Mr. Keenan sensed some problems with
>approaches to modern Russian history, in which "there is the problem of
>wide access to sources that leads to a loss of perspective and a
>tendency to think we are like them."  On the subject of doing research,
>Mr. Keenan continued:  "In a sense, it was better when it was harder."
>He said that his reading of modern source material confirms that it
>must be used with care.  "It's all shot through with mendacity,
>cynicism, and obfuscation.  These are not White House tapes -- they're
>strange documents of a strange system," Mr. Keenan said.  Study of the
>role of social networks needs to be expanded, Mr. Keenan stated:  "We
>should study who was at whose New Year's party and who's buried next to
>who in the cemetery as much as the Communist Party archives."
>
>The historian Mr. Pipes referred briefly to his experience in Munich in
>1953 interviewing Muslim refugees from Central Asia.  "It persuaded me
>that the Soviet Union was a very artificial empire, not a peaceful
>association, and that the whole thing would fly apart," Mr. Pipes said.
> But at the time, the notion that people defy the process of
>assimilation and instead cleave to national traditions was taken as a
>pejorative concept, Mr. Pipes said.  Roman Szporluk (Harvard) followed
>up on the topic of the nationalities when he said that historians
>should not be judged based on whether they predicted the collapse of
>the Soviet Union, but that "it is reasonable to say that some
>scholarship is better if it's consistent with what happens."  In this
>manner, Mr. Szporluk praised Mr. Pipes's first book, The Formation of
>the Soviet Union.  Mr. Szporluk also argued that historians who viewed
>the Bolshevik Revolution as a reprise of the French Revolution were
>direly mistaken:  "One of the stupidest things was to think that 1917
>in Russia equalled 1789 in France.  It didn't.  [The events of] 1917
>programmatically liquidated Russia."
>
>Terry Martin (Harvard) warned against "the potential to divide Russian
>history negatively" as a narrative of the Russians versus the
>non-Russians.  "The growth of national studies may entrench the
>divide," Mr. Martin said, noting that books which seem to cover the
>history of peasants or workers usually mean by that only Russians.
>Studies of the minority nationalities tend to emphasize the features
>which set the nationalities apart, such as Islamic beliefs in the
>Central Asian populations, rather than larger, "general questions"
>which appear to be the exclusive province of historians of the
>Russians.  The Russian and Soviet empires are "best framed as
>multiethnic, not Ruso-centric," Mr. Martin said.  He concluded by
>saying that comparative studies of communist societies, which would
>take up subjects such as "how did individuals adapt to the abolition of
>the market," would serve "to mark a return to the original intentions
>of the Russian Research Center" in that they have an interdisciplinary
>emphasis.
>
>Professors of literature contributed their views on current directions
>in literary research.  William Mills Todd 3d (Harvard) identified six
>research topics he called "pressing" and said that they either were
>recently proposed to the Davis Center or are actively being worked on
>right now.  Mr. Todd's list consisted of:  the social construction of
>literary roles and the "highly centripetal orientation of Russian
>literature," by which Mr. Todd meant the peculiar relationship between
>writers and the state -- the state would persecute writers, but their
>works never died; types of literature previously given short shrift in
>the academy, such as popular and mass literature since the Middle Ages;
>private life in Russia, which Mr. Todd characterized as "terra
>incognita"; the relationship of science and technology with literature,
>something Mr. Todd said merited investigation because novels were often
>serialized alongside scientific articles, although he did not mention
>the level of these scientific works; identities and subcultures in
>Russian literature; and the role of the "aesthetic," which Mr. Todd
>said is not easy to define, but he did describe it as a "sense of
>playfulness and unpredictability; a subversiveness which has had
>minimal presence in the centripetal world" referred to above.  Also
>representing Harvard's Slavic Department were Svetlana Boym, who
>explicated her work on Russian private life and spoke of literature as
>a "second Government" in Russia, and Donald Fanger, who traced the
>development of teaching Russian literature at Harvard and said he
>thought that literary research during the Cold War was not immune from
>the political agendas of that period.
>