Consequences of Oral History in an Attempt to Reconstruct Soviet Experience
Introduction
Oral history refers to the past actual life events narrated by individuals who were present when the events were taking place (Cooper, 2015). The preservation and construction of oral history are critical in the first phase of data maintenance. However, it is important to note that not all information collected from oral sources is accurate because memories fade and facts get mixed up with the perceptions of the individual. Nevertheless, sometimes it is important to take the information at face value since it might be the only source of information available for a particular part of the information required (Barbagli et al., 2016). For a long time, we knew nothing concerning the oral history of Soviet Russia. The obvious challenge was the source of information. Apart from the articles Life in the Soviet Union by Gendrik Vartanyan, there was practically no evidence concerning the oral history of Soviet Russia which could be reliable. This essay is more concerned with revealing the challenges experienced while trying to reconstruct the Soviet Union's history and also the advantages brought about by the investigation of Russian history through oral history.
Private Life in Stalin’s Era
Private life under Stalin’s rule was interesting; people lived quietly and were not as free as in current Russia. Almost every citizen had a job and was paid adequately according to the economy at that time, moreover there were no homeless people. People who were paid less traded house items with their neighbours in order to acquire the things they needed but could not afford (Patrick, 2016). During that time, workers did not strike because they had no reason whatsoever, everybody got paid enough and working conditions were relatively good. Most citizens worked in two jobs to get an extra income; both men and women were considered equal in the workplace. The only discrimination that existed was based on good and bad workers. During the Soviet Union, schools were excellent, every child was enrolled in schools and it was mandatory for every parent to take their children to school since education was free. The Soviet schools were among the top schools in the world. Additionally, well-performing students were entitled to a Government sponsorship program that helped support Bright kids from poor families. Stalin was a strong leader, and during his reign, there were strict laws that helped enhance law and order in the Soviet Union.
Both public and private citizens that were present during Stalin’s regime from different parts of Russia towns were interviewed and helped recover archives of ordinary Russian families who lived during the reign of Stalin’s rule. The author of this essay summed up almost 300 files of different families in total which were mostly archived in Russian towns, of which it was more than a decade after the regime of the Soviet. Older members of most families were interviewed since they were the most likely to be present during Stalin’s reign, they gave more details and also clarified some information contained in the private archives that were kept in the unspoken history of the household (Bennet, 2014). The teams interviewed and explored the manner in which the families reacted to different pressures of the reign of the Soviet regime. How they were able to preserve and conserve their beliefs and traditions and pass them from generation to generation, and whether they got into any conflict with the Soviet system of public values. Whether the intimate relationship was affected by living in a system ruled by terror, how could human being feelings and emotions recover their force in the moral emptiness of the Stalinist reign? What were the plans for endurance, the composures, the lies, the relationships and disloyalties, the moral concessions and accommodations that shaped millions of lives?
The research was done to investigate the private life in Stalin’s Russia wholly depended on oral history, family narratives, and memories of interviews. For many years, professionals have been in the darkness concerning information on the private lives of ordinary Soviet Citizens during the reign of Stalin. The social history of Soviet Union citizens along with their collective experience was restricted entirely to the public ideology and was hardly accessible to ordinary citizens until recently when researchers were allowed to freely access the sources containing adequate information on the ‘Soviet masses.' The professionals as they appeared, featured mainly as letter writers to the Soviet Union –as a public activist rather than a family member (Cooper, 2015). Aside from a few memoirs from able writers, there was no reliable source of the private life of ordinary people. For those who suffered from oppression, their family history was a forbidden memory zone-something they were bound never to talk or write about.
The Soviet Union existed for more than seventy years, and during its existence, it boasted a population of three hundred million (Fitz,2017). The lives and experiences of both public and private citizens were not monolithic. The objectives of the “voices from the Soviet Union” framework are to look into a select group of individual experiences during their daily lives under the political and social environment of the Union and to involve students in critically examining how primary sources can be useful in finding information and building knowledge on oral history(Cacho et al., 2014). Students are encouraged to consider how: First, the Soviet Union ideology creates a relationship between the nation and its citizens. Second, attempted to implement its ideological aspirations and objectives. Third, how can we look into the private lives of the individuals involved in history, particularly during the period they lived under a dictatorial political system, the value that this piece of knowledge provides in better understanding the nation’s history, and finally how individuals undergo different experiences in spite of being under that same political, economic and historical context. The module has activities similar to those in video lectures that contain both digitised verbalized histories from the Harvard Project on the Soviet Social System (HPSSS). The extensive online archive provides a variety of information including interviews with Soviet refugees held during the 2nd World War and after the war.
Britain had grown to become a vital component in community history from the 1970s based on folklore studies. Oral history continues to be a significant means by which history can be actively made by non-academics. Nonetheless, professionals in different academic fields have developed ways in which history can be recorded, understood, and archived in narrated memoirs (Fitz, 2015).
During the early development of oral history, it was influenced by debates occurring during the time of labour, women’s, and social history. During the 1980s, ‘history from below’ was combined by many oral historians with a goal of providing a voice for those who would else be entirely hidden from history (Fisher, 2015).
Shortly after the revolution in 1920, a commission for collecting historical data and studying historical materials was created in Russia. In the beginning, there was a challenge of lack of enough resources to investigate, the solution to this obstacle was found in oral interviews of the eye-witnesses of the revolutionary events. A research system was formed in which questionnaires were created for the project. The ‘living history’ was very popular and many publishing houses used that; for example the (society of the Old Bolsheviks, the commission for the History of the red guards, and others) (Fennel, 2014). This writing-down initiative became highly valued at the genesis. However, it was forbidden by the end of the 1925s. The action itself and the documents produced were considered very dangerous, so the first part was shut down in 1929.
In the first period of oral history in the Soviet Union, the true meaning of ‘living histories was limited because it was considered a supplement to other available sources. Their alternative nature was taken for confrontation in a debate by the audience between the official historical narrative and “other” histories. Oral History Studies (UST NAIA Astoria- this name was used in the Soviet scholarly discourse at least from the mid-1960s to date) were strictly placed in the context of archival studies and were associated with preservation and research on the documents. From the 1975s to 1985s, a few practitioners in the Soviet Union carried out reviews of oral history works published by (Kuznetsova and Surinov 1980; URSU 1988), they tried to create the nationwide oral history historiography by connecting it to Russian Experiences during Stalin’s Rule (Jobs, 2015). The professionals mention that the writers of history during this time used oral histories in their research. Surniov (2014) noted that the combined oral evidence could not be relied upon to give accurate information on the study. The opportunity to investigate peoples’ reflections of the past was of great value in oral memoirs:
“[T]he process of interpreting the fact in the historical, causal chain of the
past, the very selection of the events which are historically significant is
going on in the definite temporal line, in this process the realization of
the features of the memorialist, the informant as the subject of the historical
consciousness takes place” (Surniov, 2014 p.100-102)
It would be an overstatement to say that Soviet Oral history does not have links to the preceding Soviet Scholarships. The history was created in the 1990s and has over the last ten years developed in the same ways as oral history in the West. The first impulse for the development of Soviet history using oral history came from civil organisations, and was used as an instrument for attracting the attention of the broader public to the history of both private and public citizens during the Soviet Union period and on particular events (Komatsu, 2017). Presently after the failure of the USSR, several initiatives to reconstruct Soviet history were launched in former Soviet areas. In 1991, members from the Moscow and St. Petersburg offices began conducting interviews with members present during the war and Stalin’s rule. The results along with the combination of I. Khilkevich (interviews of the participants in the non-conformist activity in Odessa in the 1980s, and other media materials like audio and videos are currently kept in the archive of the memorial.
Towards the end of 1995, the project on oral history as an attempt to reconstruct Soviet history was launched. Interviews with the citizens, leaders, and eyewitnesses of the events during the period were conducted. More than 65 journalists and political, cultural, and religious leaders from both Russia and Ukraine were recorded in about 300 hours of audio and videotapes. The genesis of the steps to reconstruct Soviet oral history began in the early 1990s; the term became more widespread. During that time, the Center for visual anthropology and oral history at the Russian state university was launched (Kelly, 2014). Nonetheless, attempts to introduce oral history into the academic field faced some challenges, for example, traditional institutions refused to adhere to the new approach of oral history in investigation the of Soviet history. That is the reason why more centers were created in new universities in which they were more willing to apply the new approach to studying history.
The declaration to launch investigations on Soviet History using oral history was made much later after the revolution. Oral history was seen as a loudspeaker and public voice for those who had no other alternative to telling their stories. It was not only interested in offering people the chance to tell their stories but also offered a chance for the stories to provide alternative perceptions to the official historical recording. The idea was to make the multiple memoirs equal to the grand historical narrative. Oral history was to offer a rise in interest in memory and its association with the research on the Soviet Union's history. More significant developments in the research of Soviet history were underway: the so-called “pragmatic turn” and “linguistic turn” in both history and other social studies. These developments led to the attention of the construction of the Soviet Union's history using “other” voices about past events (Karp et al., 2014).
According to research conducted by the Levada Center during celebrations of the 65th anniversary of the end of Ivan's War. It appeared as if memories of the war were still fresh in the minds of the citizens present during the war. Many people said that their close relatives had suffered primarily through disappearance, injury, or death (Llic et al., 2015). When Russians were asked about the cause and key outcomes of the war, they did not have an entirely uncritical view of the Soviet Union in the war. Within Russia, the evidence for Stalin's rule the terror, the Gulag, and punishment of entire races remain in the country’s physical and emotional landscape.
Changing Memories of WWII
Oral historians have progressively critiqued both 'history from below' and 'uncovering hidden histories' as unreliable in providing accurate information on records. Nevertheless, both commitments have proven to be useful in oral history to professionals. Oral historians in the early years used to prefer collecting information from older people and their memoirs, at the same time, insights into the way people remembered and the significance of recalling were being gained from followers of the emerging nostalgia movement. The gerontological work on remembrance and studies on aging more broadly proved influential (Leuchter et al., 2014).
The criticism made by academic historians has also played a significant part in inspiring oral historians. The criticism, however, resulted in a variety of responses. The initial reaction was a positive initiative to promote oral history through the media and community-based initiatives. In this activity, the oral historians realized it was important for the people being interviewed to clearly remember the past, and it would be empowering for them. Moreover, the relationship between both parties became an important aspect to consider during the collection of information and the subsequent analysis of testimonies. Shared authority came from the considerations of empowerment by oral history practitioners (Perks et al., 2015).
The objective of providing information on past events from below was combined with the goal of revealing the lives of people who were ‘hidden from history.' Sheila Row Botham’s outstanding phrase (13) was useful to oral historians and has proved to be significant to professionals. Although Sheila did not use oral history, she was a huge role model to the likes of both Jill Lidding ton and Jill Norris (14). Sheila’s influence on oral tradition can also be seen in the second-themed oral (Raleigh, 2013).
In a history journal published in 1978, which featured ‘women’s history and contributions from Joanna Bornat, Catherine Hall, and Diana Gittins (15), the lives of working-class men were also included. Oral historians were more likely to reach into unorganised members of the working class (Ritchie, 2015).
When there is a war between two nations, there will always be problems associated with that war also advantages to the war. A variety of these consequences were experienced by citizens present during the Soviet Union. The locked resources during the war catered to Soviet citizens. Those who were near this fate donated nothing that could help not even ideology information that was relevant to the state. Kotkin, an oral history professional at the Levada research organisation, argued to train to speak in their language which would help him to get resource information from civilians. This information was well understood when they opened archives and some diaries. Their intention was to reveal personal lives. The problem with this was that dairies were not a good thing to write. They feared for their lives in case they are arrested dairies could provide full information of who they are. Diaries written by Kotkin became a serious problem to read to extract information and able to know their actual motives. They lacked information so that they could get the full story (Yow, 2014).
There are two types of narratives that one can rely on. Soviet stories and survival narratives will provide information on those who survived. They also give information on secreting behind the fate which was imperative in this ordeal. Oral history is much interested in the personal experience of individual and collective memories that can provide needed information. Memories are not reliable sources of information. The memories of human beings fade with time. Aged people will not recall everything that happened. They can even give detail of the past in the wrong way (Perks et al., 2015). More importantly, survival narratives will manipulate memories; this will enable them to provide details of the scene from their experience. Cultural diversity will follow the same pattern in providing valid evidence of oral history, especially in the Soviet State. Famous works will follow the same tone and moral values when they are structured. A good example is Ginzburg who validates his experience and shares memories without misleading or releasing wrong information.
Russian narratives encourage an individual to work and live as one nation. This also creates social awareness and understanding of each other. They have conventional views which are to live and help each other at all times. There believe they are supposed to be together even when times are tough. They can boast about being together not divided by any social problems despite the Great Patriotic War that was regarded as problematic in the peace of the city. Finally, they settled despite many challenges that were still threatening them. Prisoners destroyed their habitat by desolating their landscape, but their concern was to pay and live peacefully. They even could describe the place as a beautiful city (Surnovia, 2014). This was the fruit of collective memory sharing which enabled them to live in a beautiful city after all the pain they passed through. The Soviet narrative has not only displayed their victory after long-suffering but also the personal experience, for example, retrieving their memories. There can boast after an arrest that they have no stigma and can glorify the narrative after their accomplishment.
In early times oral history has a shortcoming when we refer to Soviet Union experiences. Many refugees that were interviewed when Harvard University conducted an interview as a project to get information on their fate realized that many of them were affected by experience since they could hardly recall anything that happened in the war. This war had some downfalls and advantages which were experienced. There is a need to question some individuals who are less experience, especially in the project that was carried out. They only understood Soviet Regime well but not Soviet narratives (Tylor, 2015). The West greatly influenced those who took part in the interviews. This could create little trust in those we thought to be experienced. Soviets got the picture of what Western people were trying to put. The information provided by young interviewees can only be proven by the archived history of young in. Articles and journals could not provide full information on what exactly happened, but interviews have everything that happened.
Oral history is the key to unity and freedom Soviet Union because it can reveal the private lives of those who were in Stalin's regime. Some people feared expressing their thoughts in public because they little trusted the interviewer who could cause their arrest. It is true to say that patience pays, and in this case, it did because they were able to live on their land peacefully. Most people especially the old were more than willing to confess rather than be tortured. They confessed their feeling about the thing that happened during the regime (Rale, 2014). Memories of those who were being interviewed were thought to be skewed and not saying what happened, but in the real sense, they were right and gave what was needed. Myths and cultural contexts were making what they said incorrectly. According to them, they believe that they were holding information. They accused their family and national state of hiding the information and details on the same.
In the same article, two related stories one about a daughter living with her mother and not aware that her father and husband is a political prisoners, and another story about a girl who is not mindful of the fact that her father works as a senior chief in that state. This happened in 1938 and came to light in 2004. This provides evidence that there existed lies in the information on an experience they collected. This was the reason behind releasing many documents that were analysing oral histories that could show the truth. They also started to seek the individual that was highly experienced to reveal the truth. They could not have done this while having all the documents holding this information on the experience. This memory was synthesized to come up with the fact of their expertise in this oral history. Oral history contributed to providing facts on the Soviet experience. It created social awareness of what was being experienced in the unification of the Soviets (Tylor, 2015).
For a long time, we knew nothing concerning the oral history of Soviet Russia. The obvious challenge was the sources of information. Apart from articles written by great early writers, practically there was no evidence concerning the oral history of Soviet Russia which could be reliable. This article is more concerned with addressing that difficulty by going through the results of a historical recovery project on a large-scale. The two teams from different parts of Russia towns we researched and have been recovering archives of ordinary Russian families who lived during the reign of Stalin’s rule. We summed up almost 300 files of different families in total which were mostly in private homes in Russian towns, of which it was more than a decade after the regime of the Soviets. In every family we carried out extensive interviews with the oldest members of the families, they were able to give more details concerning these private archives and keep them in the unspoken history of the household (Zhuk, 2016).
The diverse donations that can be found in the periodical were also current in the Society's public events. Early Meeting themes included oral tradition and vernacular, the First World War, work, local history, street values, oral history on the radio (in partnership with the BBC) and in the classroom, the Global Brigade, and women's history. Communal, Museum, and county record office initiatives were also in evidence. Through its annual meetings and seminar series, the Society continues explicitly to explore new areas and engage new audiences. Society continues specifically to explore new zones and engage new audiences.
The initiatives to reconstruct Soviet history during Stalin’s rule and Ivan’s War have experienced some challenges. Encouragingly, there is a huge diversity of action and methodology in the investigation of history and historical events. Professionals of the oral history initiative have stated that these activities have had a significant impact both negative and positive. Political activists tend to control education, media, and public space making it difficult to inform the public accordingly (Pringle, 2017). Putin, speaking in Butovo repeatedly denounced Stalin in public, the Russian president also borrowed from Stalin according to research conducted by the Levada Commission, 78% of Russian citizens believe that Stalin’s policies and ideologies were entirely unjustified and 50% thought that it was his death the ended the terror. In contemporary Russia, the relationship between the Russian government and its citizens was reduced to an absolute minimum. Interviewees revealed that the oppression during that time, the suffering experienced by a state that regulated every aspect of its citizen’s private and public lives was huge.
Conclusion
While reconstructing Russian history using Oral history, a number of challenges were experienced. To mention a few is the lack of archived information to prove the oral information given by interviewees. The people present During Stalin’s rule gave information according to their point of view, hence the information they gave was biased, and also since they rely mostly on memory, some information may have been left aside. Nonetheless, during the reconstruction of Soviet history, certain values such as unity and patriotism have been acquired by the current citizens since they saw the sacrifices that were made by their forefathers in order to acquire the freedom they are currently enjoying.
References
Ratings
