‘Russia is Constantly Changing, Like the Troika Rushing Forward’
On June 28th, 2013, Joseph Bradley, Professor of History at the University of Tulsa, USA, spoke at the HSE on ‘Studying Late Imperial Russian Society and State as part of Russian Studies in the USA’. He gave a special interview to HSE news service.
The event took place as part of a seminar organized jointly by the Research and Study Group ‘Institutionalization of Human Rights in the Context of Modernizing State and Legal Systems in Russian in the beginning of the 20th century’ headed by Professor Alexandr Safonov, and the master’s programme on History, Theory and Philosophy of Law, headed by Professor Anastasia Tumanova.
Joseph Bradley is Professor of History at the University of Tulsa, USA, and editor-in-chief of the Russian Studies in History journal, the author of a number of books, including Associations in Tsarist Russia: Science, Patriotism and Civil Society(Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 2009), and Muzhik and Muscovite: Urbanization in Late Imperial Russia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).
— You've been specializing in Russia's history, cultural and social changes for a few decades. What is the most attractive for you as a researcher today and why?
— As a researcher today, there are more materials available than in Soviet times, especially in archives. In addition, it is much easier to meet and have conversations about Russian history with my counterparts – Russian historians. It is certainly easier for a foreigner to live in Russia than it was before (though I lived here for almost three years in the 1970s) and to come and go; there are now multiple-entry visas that simplify travel.
— The topic of Russian studies in the USA has been chosen as one of the issues for discussion at the workshop. What's the tendency?
— Unfortunately, Russian studies in the USA have been in decline. This is for several reasons. First, the Cold War ended and with it, the cold war rivalry between the US and the USSR. I think many, including myself in the late 1960s and 1970s, became interested in Russia because of the Cold War. Second, many academic fields, including Russian studies, are prone to changes in fashion. Russian studies were “fashionable” a generation ago. Since then, other areas of studies have become fashionable – Asia, the Middle East. Third, the US-Soviet relationship was seen primarily as a relationship between states and states by and large are led by elites. But in the past 20 years or so in America there has been an anti-elite bias in the academy, a new populism, if you will. In American history, for example, many historians study minorities, not elites. This is not favorable for the study of Russia – except, indirectly, in one way: there is more interest now in the regions and in the minorities of the Russian empire, as well as in the countries of the former Soviet Union, which had been understudied in the past.
— Could you please tell us more about your study of the Moscow Polytechnical Museum?
— It's an interesting subject for study for a non-Russian researcher.
I became interested in the Polytechnical Museum while researching my book on voluntary associations in tsarist Russia. The museum was founded by the Moscow Society of Friends of Natural History, Anthropology and Ethnography. The core collection came from the 1872 Polytechnical Exposition, about which I wrote an article. The museum had a very marked educational agenda – to disseminate knowledge about the natural world to the broad public. In that way, it resembled similar institutions in America and Europe. I have decided to study the museum in the Soviet period as well. The museum went through several reorganizations during the Cultural Revolution, as cultural radicals were not satisfied with the way the museum was displaying science and technology. And the museum is famous in Moscow for its auditorium which has held many lectures and meetings over the years.
— What could be done to improve the image of Russia in the West? How important is cooperation between universities, researchers and students in this regard?
— Of course, cooperation is always important. If people can spend time working with colleagues from another country, they will be less susceptible to stereotypes. Unfortunately, many Americans have stereotypes about Russia, many of which are not positive. These stereotypes have developed over a long period and are not easy to change. There were brief moments of positive impressions in the 20th century: the wartime alliance of 1941-45 and the Gorbachev and early Yeltsin years of 1985-95. But the first moment quickly ended with the onset of the Cold War. And the second moment, ironically, is not regarded very positively by most Russians, even though the Gorbachev and early Yeltsin years unleashed the extraordinary dynamism of Russia today.
It is difficult to say what could be done to improve the image of Russia in the West. If more Americans studied Russian and learned more about the country, that would help, but (for reasons I suggested above) it is unlikely that a significant number of people will do this. In Russia, a political system that allowed more open competition among differing political views would improve the image of Russia, but this does not seem likely in the near future. The Russian government for centuries has feared political activism of its citizens. In addition, the Russian legal system and business culture make it difficult for those Americans and Europeans who want to work with and in Russia and to be partners.
Speaking about my cooperation with the HSE, I could certainly participate in conferences and teach at HSE by contract.
— You've worked in Moscow and have been in Russia so many times... What is still interesting for you here?
— Russia is always an adventure. There are always unexpected things that happen. It is never boring. And, Moscow especially, is always very lively and vibrant. Russia is constantly changing, like the troika rushing forward in Gogol!
Anna Chernyakhovskaya, specially for HSE news service