An Observation on Soviet Sociology [and Comments and Reply]

Author(s): Jiri Kolaja, Joel Halpern, Paul Hollander, Irving Louis Horowitz, Alex Simirenko and
Elizabeth Weinberg
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 373-378
Published by: University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741998
Accessed: 09-02-2016 20:36 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:36:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 on SovietSociology'
An Observation Filipov's (1976) analysis of the participationof women in
Soviet societyrevealsthat 59% of the specialistsin the Soviet
Uniontodayare women;however,Slesarov(1976) reportsthat,
by JIRI KOLAJA in such categoriesas construction and transportation, women
Departmentof Sociologyand Anthropology, West Virginia comprise29%oand 24%, respectively, of the workforce.
University, Morgantown, W.Va. 26506,U.S.A. 4 vii 77 Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya(Sociological Research), the
The Soviet Sociological Association has at present 1,500 long-awaitedsociologicalperiodical,beganpublicationin 1974.
individualmembersand 400 organizations(Bovkun 1976). Its It seems to be issued quarterly,and about 7,675 copies are
3 book
current president,M. N. Rutkevich,tellsus thatin thesummer printed. Number 1 (1974) contains 25 essays and
of 1972, the Instituteof ConcreteSocial Investigationwas reviews; Number 2 (1976) has 32 articles and 5 book reviews,
renamed the Institute of Sociological Investigationby a including2 review-articles.
decisionof the Presidiumof the Soviet Academyof Sciences In Number 1, one firstnoticesthat,in additionto research
(Rutkevich1976). Since it is none other than the Academy, articles, there are some political, ideological articles with
and notan unofficial group,whichhas sanctionedthechangein criticism of Westernapproaches;thereare also discussionsof
title of this organization,it is now both a "governmental" organizationalproblemswhich beset our colleagues in the
organizationand a sociologicalone. SovietUnion. Rutkevichpresentsinformation on social classes
Since our in contemporary Soviet society, differentiating between the
disciplinehas had quitea feworganizational, politi-
cal, financial,and semanticproblemsin the U.S.S.R., it is working class, the white-collar professional class, and the rural
relevantto considerinitiallythe trainingand backgroundof population. While Rutkevich takes a societal approach, V. G.
the presentgenerationof Soviet sociologists.The onlyfactual Vasil'ev, in an article on industrial sociology, suggests that the
evidenceI have to go on here is an article on an All-Union socialist system accounts for what he sees as an absence of
Symposiumof Sociologistsheld in Leningradin 1966 (Belyaev informal groups. (In my own view, the formal rules of an
et al. 1966). There wereabout 600 participantsin the sympo- organizationand their "behavioral realization" are, if not
sium,380 of whomwerefromoutsideLeningrad.Of the total, contradictory to each other,at leastrarelyidentical.I therefore
had been trainedas philosophers, see a need for additionaltermsto identifydifferent categories
25% 27% as historians,10%
as economists,3% as psychologists,30.5% as scholars in of behavior.)
various fieldsof the humanities,and 4.5% as technicians.It Otherarticlescouldbe broadlycharacterized as dealingwith
would seemobviousthat Soviet sociologistsneed moreprofes- complexproblemsof organization.N. A. Antov studies the
sional trainingin sociology,and I have located two references culturaland educationalaspirationsof employees,as do M. T.
whichindicatethatthisis recognizedin the SovietUnion.The Yovchuk and L. N. Kogan. Work satisfactionis the topic of
first(Nazimova and Cherkasov 1974) stressesthe need for V. A. Yadov and A. A. Kissel, and the amount and use of
greaterprofessional preparationforthosewho seek careersas freetimeare studiedby V. D. Patrushev.An enquiryinto the
sociologists,and the second (Rutkevich1976:167) reportson social structureof470 familiesis made by Z. A. Yankova, and
visits by advisorsto 15 different townswhere,among other B. N. Chaplinand N. N. Bakarev considerthe politicalinfor-
things,assistancein researchwas givento sociologistsinvolved mationpossessedby scientists.B. S. ArchipovoftheCommunist
in local projects.I thinkthis is a step in the rightdirection. Party in Kostron discussesthe problemsof workingwomen,
Afterall, even Marxist theoryemphasizespraxis as the ulti- reporting that25% ofthewomenstudiedexpresseddissatisfac-
mate criterion.The 842 universitiesand university-level tionwiththe greatdistancebetweenthe work-placeand their
institutions,with enrollmentsof around 4,800,000students homes.Z. Alobinaand V. D. Shapiro analyze the family,and
(Filipov 1976), will need to become even more sophisticated the socioeconomicdevelopmentof a village is reportedon by
than they are in methodology.For this reason,I note with V. I. Vladirov.Thereis also a Polishcontribution, by N. Anach
enthusiasmthe sociologists'handbookpublishedin 1975 by and V. Veselovskiy,on changes in Polish society. A final
G. V. Osipov,M. N. Rutkevich,and F. R. Filipov (Rutkevich contributionby the Associate Editor, V. I. Staroverov,is
1976:163).At thesame time,as I shallexplainbelow,a "politi- directedtowardsS. M. Lipset, who, presumablyincorrectly,
cal" criterionseemsto underliefutureprograms. maintained that financial rewards to Soviet students are
Despite effortsto supply us with reliable informationin grantedon the basis of certain"elite" criteria.
Westernjournals regardingSoviet sociologicalresearch,the Number2 includessomeresearchstudiesworthattentionand
information we have is not altogethercompleteor satisfactory. an accountby Rutkevichofthepast and futureactivitiesofthe
I shall mentionbrieflysome of the workundertakenby our Soviet SociologicalAssociation.
colleaguesin the U.S.S.R. over thelast tenyearsor so. To do justiceto the"politicalarticles"in thisvolume,I must
The mostcomprehensive treatment is stillOsipov's (1965-66) report thatit beginswithan unsignedarticleabout sociology's
Sotsiologiya v SSSR (Sociologyin the U.S.S.R.). In the fieldof role in the constructionof a Communistsociety.The article
the sociologyofindustrialorganizations, Osipov and Szczepan- thatfollowsis by J. E. Volkovand concernsCommunistParty
ski's (1969) work is, in termsof the numberof enterprises policyin relationto sociologicalinvestigations. S. M. Smirnov
comparedover a five-year period,withoutprecedentin world discusses the revolution in science and technology and its
sociology.Zvorykin's(1969) volume of interviewsof 1,000 relationshipto maturesocialism.V. M. Sokolovwriteson the
of
Soviet scientistsis unique; interestingly, among the problems formationof the Communistworldview amongpeople the
investigatedis the emergenceof new scientific ideas,including youngergeneration.N. V. Pilipenko criticizesanti-Marxists
the social-interaction situationsthat prevail in such cases. fortheirmethodologicalinadequacies.These articlestake up
Shubkin (1969) has focused attentionon the occupational 45 pages of the issue and may serveas an exampleofwhatour
aspirations of Soviet high-schoolgraduates. In the study Soviet colleaguespresumablyconsiderthe desirablepolitical
reported,90% of the respondentsexpressedaspirations to functionof sociology.
enter white-collarand professionaloccupations,althoughit Therefollowsomeinteresting articleson migration problems.
seemsunlikelythat such a highproportionwill,in thelifetime T. G. Gaponova indicatesthat the populationin Siberia tends
of theseyoungsters, be channeledinto professionalfields.An to remainstablebecause thereis notonlyimmigration but also
industrialstudyby Zdravomyslov,Rozhin,and Iadov (1967) reverse migrationfrom Siberia back to Europe or to the
is characterizedby extensive reliance on statistical tests. SouthernAsiatic republicsof the Soviet Union. Migrationto
the northof European Russia seems to be more successful
1 (," 1978 by The Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological because the populationremainsin that region,accordingto
Research0011-3204/78/1902-0007$01.00. the studyby V. A. Protsenko.Migrationinto and out of the
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978 373

This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:36:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Far East, which normallyinvolvesabout 400,000personsa
year,is graduallyworkingin favorof growthin populationof
the Far Easternsectorof the SovietUnion,accordingto S. N.
Zhelezko,G. F. Morozova,and B. G. Serditych.V. N. Varygin,
K. D. Argunova,and L. V. Makarova use regressionanalysis
for a study of interregional migration.A study of the social
structure oftheagricultural populationsettlingin urbancenters
is presentedby V. G. Babakov. In all, 34 pages ofthisissueare
givenover to studiesofpopulationand migration.
AlthoughR. Ch. Simonyan'sarticle in the next section
consistsin adviceon howto improvetheleadershipin a growing
productionunit, two other articles deal with problemsof
methodology: one by M. C. Kosolapov on the classification of
data and one by V. V. Cherednichenko, based on a question-
naire,on the use of expertsin makingforecastsin the fieldsof
demography,science and technology,economics,sociological
conditions,and even cultural,social-political,and interna-
tional relationsand conditions.Kosolapov refersvery posi-
tivelyto manyAmericanpublications.
Whereasthe firstnumbercontainedan articleby Poles, in
thisone we finda reportby P. E. Mitev on Bulgarianresearch
on the social initiativeand readinginterestsofyouth.
Thereare also threecriticalarticlesdirectedagainstWestern
sociology.L. G. Ionin challengesthe American"phenomeno-
logical" sociologists;I. V. Bestuzhev-Lada,G. S. Batygin,and
N. P. Grishaevacontributean articleentitled"QualityofLife
as a Reflectionof Contradictionsin BourgeoisSociety," and
E. V. Osipova writesabout the ideologicaldebate concerning
Durkheimiansociology.
The remaining63 pages of this volumeincludea two-page
account of some organizationalproblemsof the Soviet Socio-
logical Associationby V. V. Bovkun. Further,one can find
reportson variousrecentconferences: on criticismof contem-
porarybourgeoissociology,on the scientificmanagementof
growthin a socialistsociety,on the scientific-technical revolu-
tionand the ideologicalstruggle, on the demographic problems
of the Soviet family,on the adaptation of youth to a Com-
munisteducation,on the image of life presentedat interna-
tional conferences, and on policyregardingfreetimein Rem-
scheid,West Germany.Finally, thereare fivebook reviews,
one of whichcoversa Polish book (On AmericanSociological
Propaganda,by A. Lawrowski) and one a Bulgarian book
(Sociologyand Science,by N. Yachiel). Moreover,thereis a
listof73 Russianbookson sociologyor relatedtopicspublished
duringthe last two vears and a list of the contentsof current
Bulgarian, Polish, Czechoslovak,and Romanian sociological
periodicals.Finally,thereare threepages ofEnglishsummaries
of the articlesin the issue.
Turning now to the presidentialreportby Rutkevich,I
recommendespeciallythe part whichdescribesresearchand
publicationactivitiesand the part on goals and criteria.I will
mentionherethestudiesoftheworking classbyV. V. Kolbanov-
skiyand his group,whichpay particularattentionto problems
caused by automation;the estimateby V. I. Staroverovof the
ruralpopulationin 1990 and 2000; and the coordinationpro-
vided by T. I. Zaslavskaya forsome relatedresearchprojects.
F. R. Filipov reportshis researchfindings in severaluniversity-
level institutionsin different cities and estimatesthe impact
of such institutionson the changingsocial structure.M. S.
Dzhunusov is concernedwith nationalityproblemsin the
Soviet CentralAsiaticrepublics.The problemofmigrationand
stabilityis beinganalyzedby L. L. Rybakovskiy.
Rutkevich cites four books which have been published
recentlyor are about to be published:Sotsial'nayaStruktura
RazvitogoSotsialisticheskogo Obshchestva v SSSR (Social Struc-
tureofa Developed SocialistSocietyin theU.S.S.R); Problemy
Raxvitiya Sotsial'noyStruktury Obshchestva v SovetskomSoyuzei
Pol'she (Problemsof the Evolutionof the Social Structureof
Societyin the Soviet Unionand Poland), anotherjoint Soviet-
Polishventure;Sotsialisticheskiy ObraxZkiznii Ideologicheskaya
This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:36:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Borba (A Socialist Life-Imageand the Ideological Struggle);
and Problemy Sotsialisticheskogo
ObrazaZhizni (Problemsof a
SocialistLife-Image).
There are also some prognosticstudies,namely,I. V. Bes-
tuzhev-Lada'sPrognozirovanie Sotsial'nychPotrebnosteyMolo-
dezhi(Youth Social-NeedsForecasting)and V. D. Patrushev's
studyof thescientific-technicalrevolutionand the timebudget
of ruralyouth.
The sociologyofthefamilyis beingstudiedby A. G. Charchev
(currentEditor)and Z. A. Yankova,whoseresearchin Moscow
is soon to appear as Sem'ya v Gorodskom Microraione(The
Family in an Urban Microrayon).In addition, researchon
scientistsconductedundertheguidanceofB. Z. Kononyukhas
resultedin the publicationby the senior researcher,A. A.
Zvorykin (1975), of VoprosyTeorii i PraktikiOrganizatsyi
UpravleniyaNaukoy (Problemsof Theory and Praxis of the
Organizationand Administration of Science). Anotherbook on
social-economicplanningand ideologicalwork indicatesthat
thisissue is not onlyinvestigatedby Sovietresearchers,but in
all probabilityconstitutesa general problemin the Soviet
systemof administration.
I. I. Changliis studyingthe effectof competitionin enter-
prisesin Moscow,Ivanov, Minsk,Zaporozhye,and elsewhere.
0. I. Shkaratanis conductingstudiesof planningin termsof
territorial,economic,and social variables.In Vitebsk,an in-
vestigationof public opinion has been launched,while the
readersof Pravda are beingstudiedby V. C. Korobeynikov.A
conference on contentanalysiswas held in Leningradin 1973.
Variousreflections on Marxism-Leninism producedunderthe
guidance of V. S. Kruzhkov were presentedat the Eighth
World Sociological Conferencein Toronto and have since
appeared in two volumesentitledSotsiologiyai Sovremennost'
(Sociologyand the Present).Two otherbooksin thiscategory
are being prepared for publication: Kritika Burzhuaznoy
Teoreticheskoy Sotsiologiy(A Critiqueof BourgeoisTheoretical
Sociology) and Kritika Sotsial'noy Filosofii 'Frankfurtskoy
Shkoly'(A Critiqueof the Social Philosophyofthe "Frankfurt
School"). Accordingto Rutkevich,theyshow that the collapse
of structural-functionalism has promoted neoevolutionism,
social existentialism,phenomenologicalsociology, social
neo-Freudianism,and critical sociology,among other doc-
trines. Anotherpublication exemplifying the political ap-
proach to sociology is Kritika Sotsiologicheskih Konceptsiy
Mezhdunarodnogo Sionizma (A Critique of the Sociological
Conceptsof InternationalZionism),edited by M. B. Mitin,
L. Ya. Dadiani, and G. N. Osipov.
In my opinion,most of these sociological-or perhaps we
shouldsay "quasi-sociological"-worksare politicallyoriented.
This impressionis corroboratedby Rutkevich'sprogramfor
Sovietsociology.In answerto the question"In what direction
shouldSovietsociologybe developed?"he suggeststhefollowing:
1. Sociologyshouldbecomeinvolvedin problemsofplanning
and administration. It should developplanningmethodsand
social indicators.To this end, the cooperationof economists
and othersshouldbe sought.
2. It should learn more about the social structureof a
developed socialist society and about differentsystemsfor
sharing socialist property.Similarly,it should study the
problemof the integrationof social classes and nationalities,
concentrating especiallyon youngpeople. It shouldalso study
regionaldifferences and interregional
migration.
3. It should investigate how the socialist life-imageis
promotedin the family,in periodsofleisure;cooperationwith
economistsand othersocial scientistsis necessary.It should
suggest some practical steps in several fields,among them
demographic policy.
4. It should investigate ideological processes and their
controland guidance. Public-opinionstudy and mass-media
analysisshouldbe promotedin orderto illuminatethe rolesof
different organizations,whetherpolitical parties or govern-
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
mentalor public groups,in disseminating politicaland other
information.
5. It shouldenquireintoand criticizethesociologicalnotions
of ideologicalopponents.Imperialistpropagandahas increased
and intensified. Some sociologists,such as Aron,have become
reviewersin the popular press. Contacts betweenSoviet and
foreignsociologistsshould be developedwith an eye to this
problem.
In view of all this,what can we concludeabout the present
situationof Soviet sociology?To me, it presentsan almost
classicexampleof the functionof science.A modernsociety,if
it is to develop,cannotdo withoutscience.That sociologyhas
been graduallyadmittedinto the Soviet Union is an indicator
whichwe mayobservewithoptimism.That it is nowpolitically
challengedis an indicatorof the oppositekind.Let us hope for
the sake of our Soviet colleagues-as well as our own-that
scientificcriteriawillultimatelyprevail.
Comments
byJOEL HALPERN
Departmentof Anthropology, Universityof Massachusetts,
Amherst, Mass. 01003,U.S.A. 28 xi 77
When I receivedthisitemin the mail,myreactionwas one of
puzzlement.Why did the Editor decide to reviewa piece on
Sovietsociology?Thereis no doubtthatthisarticleis ofinterest
to at leastsomesociologists, and I'm surea fewanthropologists,
but its appearancein CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY does not,in my
view,reflectthebestpossiblesenseofprioritiesforthisjournal.
My commentary will therefore focuson whatI thinkmightbe
possiblefutureprioritieswithrespectto relatedarticles.
Despite the notable effortsof CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY,
American-or, perhaps betterput, Anglo-American-anthro-
pologyremainsa provincialdiscipline.That is, whileEnglish,
Commonwealth, and North Americancolleaguesare in quite
good communication and, to a degree,forma professional unity
with anthropologists who publish in English (in the Nether-
lands,Scandinavia,Japan,and India), scholarlyexchangewith
therestoftheworldtendsto be restricted. I exclude,ofcourse,
specialistsin variousgeographicareas and cultures,who tend
to be in touch with developmentsbearingon theirown par-
ticularinterests.This seems to contrastwiththe situationin
the biologicaland naturalsciences.Perhaps some enterprising
personwill do a surveyof citationsin the AmericanAnthro-
pologist,Man, and one or twootherjournalsto see the number
of sources (not includingthose of a strictlyethnographic
nature) which are cited in languages other than English or
which representtranslationsfromother languages (besides
French).In thisconnection, it wouldbe significantto knowthe
extentto whichtranslationjournalssuchas SovietAnthropology
and Archeology and SovietSociology,underthe devotededitor-
shipoftheDunns,have had an impacton thegeneralconceptual
framework of anthropology.
This becomesmorepertinentconsidering thegrowingimpact
ofMarxismon Anglo-American anthropology. One can wonder
about the extentto whichthisinteresthas been translatedinto
a concernwiththe development ofanthropology as a discipline
in the SovietUnionand EasternEurope,China,Vietnam,and
othersocialistcountries.I have in mindparticularlyevolving
conceptualframeworks, methodologies, and the organization
ofthedisciplineratherthanempiricalstudiesas such,although
obviouslythe two are very closelyintertwined. Most readers
are all too well aware that one of the criticalproblemsis that
anthropology as a discipline,eitherin the contextof the four-
fieldapproach or in termsof social anthropology, is largely
restrictedto those societieswhich use English,French,and
Spanishas primaryor secondarylanguagesin scholarship.
Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978
This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:36:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Tamas Hofer of the EthnographicMuseum in Budapest,
writingin CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY, has been practicallyalone
in exploringthe different conceptualorientationsof Anglo-
Americansocial anthropology and European ethnology.(One
should,of course,not excludepreviousarticlesin this journal
dealingwithrecentdevelopments in Sovietethnographictheory
and Soviet CentralAsia, as well as articlesdealingwith East
European archeologyand physicalanthropology.)Kroeberin
his Anthropology spoke of an oikumeneof the Greekswhich
stretchedfromGibraltarto India and "dimlyknownChina."
He wenton to state that the Greekswereuncertainwhat was
beyondthiscivilizationand consideredit "eitherwastelandor
land occupiedonlyby unstablesavages" (1948:423). No one can
question the political and economicinterrelatedness of the
contemporaryworld, but serious contemplationof a world
anthropology seemsquite anothermatter.This briefarticleon
the professionalstatus of sociologyin the Soviet Union seems
to raise the need for a professionalpiece on the status of
anthropologyas a discipline,or series of disciplines,in the
SovietUnionand the meaningsuchan analysismighthave for
a betterunderstanding of our own scholarship.
byPAUL HOLLANDER
Department ofSociology,University ofMassachusetts, Amherst,
Mass. 01002,U.S.A. 22 xii 77
I would like to supplementthe more factualobservationsof
Kolaja witha fewmoregeneralcommentsabout the natureof
Soviet sociology.
The riseand rapid developmentof Sovietsociologysincethe
late 1950shave oftenbeen citedas an exampleoftheliberaliza-
tion of the regimeand its growingtoleranceof social scientific
inquiry.There is some truth to this. Sociologywas denied
existenceunder Stalin, when the definitions of social reality
wereexclusivelyideologicalor propagandistic. It has, however,
also beenpointedout that the developmentof Sovietsociology
is not so mucha tributeto the open-mindedness of the regime
as a reflectionoftheofficial desireto makeeconomicand social
arrangements more efficient. Soviet sociologicalresearchis a
governmententerprise, applied and policy-oriented; its direc-
tion is set by the authorities,its methodsand findingsare
politically circumscribed.There is reason to believe that
substantialamountsof data collectedneverget publishedfor
ideologicalreasons. The Party apparatus itselfconductsso-
ciologicalresearchnot intendedforpublication.The limitsof
the scope of the Sovietsociologicalenterpriseare illustratedby
the absence of nationwidestudies on crime,suicide, mental
illness,alcoholism,and othersocial pathologiesand problems.
No statisticsare available on such topics,except occasional
local studies of limited coverage and generalizability.Even
whenSovietsociologistsstudysocialproblemsat thelocal level,
theycan neverseek or findany interdependence betweenthe
local shortcomingand some societal-institutional malfunc-
tioning. Functional analysis is particularlyavoided, since
emphasison interdependence may lead to callinginto question
the entiresocial system.It may also be notedherethat Soviet
sociologistshave not been associated with otherintellectuals
who have raised searchingand critical questions about the
natureof Soviet society.Those who in the last two decades
have asked the most penetratingquestionsabout the Soviet
social systemhave beeneitherscientists(natural)orhumanists.
While Soviet sociologyhas had manyups and downsin the
past 20 years,on the wholeits scope has, howeverhaltingly,
broadened,althoughrestrictionsremain. Perhaps the emer-
gence of Soviet sociologyreflectsan overestimation(on the
part of the leaders)of its problem-solvingcapabilities.It may,
in addition,reflectthebeliefthatvigoroussociologicalresearch
is as mucha part of a trulymodernsocietyas traffic jams and
air pollution.There is no doubt that Soviet sociologistshave
collecteda greatmanyinteresting data on a varietyofsubjects
375
and called attentionto certainsocialproblemsby documenting decisionmakingis arrivedat differently, by intuitionor ideol-
theirexistence.At the same time,it would be hard to claim ogy, and hence containsthe potentialfordangerouspractical
thattheyhave providedany theoreticalbreakthrough or major consequences.
discoveryor thattheirworkhas revolutionised ourperceptions Thereare severalcuriousblankspotsin Kolaja's commentary
of Soviet societyor compelledseriousrevisionsin our view of whichcan be charitablychalked up to the brevityof space
the SovietUnion. allotted.For example,he notesthat almostall practitioners of
Soviet sociology were trained in other fields-philosophy,
history,and the humanities.He fails to note that the savage
historyof Stalinismdestroyeda sociologicaltraditionthathad
byIRVING Louis HOROWITZ its roots deep in late 19th-and early 20th-century Russian
Department ofSociology,RutgersUniversity, New Brunswick, scienceand politics.He reportswith"enthusiasm"thepublica-
N.J. 08903,U.S.A. 4 xii 77 tion of the most pedestrianSoviet effortsto summarizethe
I shall beginwithwhat may understandably be regardedas a stateoftheart,but failsto notethattheareas M. N. Rutkevich
digression,but one which allegoricallyilluminesthe general and othershave urged upon their colleagues-planning,ad-
characteristics of Sovietsociology.Kolaja is entirelycorrectto ministration, migration, marriageand thefamily-areprecisely
note that "a modernsociety,if it is to develop, cannot do those fieldsthat are deemed politicallysafe and in whicha
without science," but if we are to proceed beyond simple considerable bodyofworkhas alreadybeendone.Kolaja takesit
homileticsit is essentialto focuson the three-step arrangement as an unmixedblessingthat sociologistshave put old winein a
of social sciencedata withregardto social systems: new vat and are now officially sanctionedby a decisionfrom
Data gathering.For a societyto denytherightto gatherdata the Presidiumof the Soviet Academyof Sciences.He fails to
freelyand without coercionis a clear demonstrationof a take seriouslythe scientificconservatismand exclusionary
totalitariansystem.In sucha system,a setofa prioriconsider- potentialin suchprematureprofessionalization.
ations operates(i.e., ideologicaldeclarationsof the equalityof The presentstateofSovietsocial scienceis bestcharacterized
races and sexes,withoutregardforempiricalevidenceabout by widespreaddata-gathering networkswith exceedinglynar-
discrimination and equityabsences,or theologicaldeclarations rowdata diffusion. WhilethereadinghabitsoftheSovietpublic
that certainpropositionsabout the worldare offlimits).Such are knownto be virtuallyinsatiable,this does not seem to
systems,to varyingdegrees,followPeirce's notionofmethods extendto social scienceinformation. There seems to be little
forfixingbeliefbased on traditionand authority. debate on issues generatedby empiricalresearch,although
Data diffusion.For a society to permit the gatheringof such studies,whetherin planning,development,or stratifica-
accuratedata but to restricttheirutilizationto a smalleliteis tion,do take place amongrelativelynarrowbands of technical
a social measure of authoritarianism. In the classical cases, elites. A question which mightwell be addressedby Soviet
authoritariansocietiesuse accurate information to maintain expertsdoingresearchon sociologyas an occupationwouldbe
social or state controls.In such systems,the apriorismsgive just how widelydata are disseminated,discussed,and acted
way to operationalisms,mechanismsfor imposingcontrols. upon. In seekingto answerit, we mightachievea betterchar-
Hence, the functionof accurateinformation is to createinac- acterizationofSovietsocietythroughitsperspectiveson Soviet
curateperformances. Data forthe elite becometranslatedinto sociology.As it is, our Soviet colleagues,ratherthan givingus
propaganda for the masses. In such circumstances,social linkagesbetweenscienceand sociology,have merelygivenus
science,as a set of researchprogramsdivestedof any critical general demographicinformationon the fewer-than-2,000
component, widelyexpands. practitioners of sociology.
Data implementation. When a societyrespondsto data in In a freesocietyone expectsa criticalliterature.Nothingin
termsof theirpotentialforsocial changes,thena conditionof the reportrenderedby Kolaja suggeststhatsuchworkis being
populismcan be said to exist. At this level, data become the done in the U.S.S.R. In my own reading,a distinctand un-
sourceof public behaviorand not simplyrestrictive behavior. comfortablefeelingarises that, when it comes to the Soviet
I am notsimplyaddressingtheissueofsocial scienceas critical Union,all sociologymustbe positive,but whenit comesto the
as wellas constructive. What I am specifically alludingto is the United States and the West in general,criticismis not only'
wayin whichmassivediffusion permitsthepossibilityofimple- permitted,but officiallysanctioned.The Soviet system of
mentation;put another way, data implementationis what criticismand self-criticism thusreducesitselfto an ideological
policy formationis about. The idea of policy as an entity caricature.There is criticismof scholarslike RaymondAron,
independentof politicsis the foundationof data implementa- but little or no self-criticism of Soviet sociologistsbeyond a
tion. Statingthis in reversecausal sequence: a societywidely perfunctory, ritualisticvariety,nothingthat woulddare move
implementing the consequencesof data gatheringand diffusion in the directionof fundamentalrevisionsin orthodoxSoviet
impliesthe preexistenceof a group withinthe social system Marxism-Leninism.
willingand able to act upon thesharpdiscrepancies revealedby To be bland about thispoint is to treatSoviet sociologyas
thedata-discrepanciesnotbetweendata-gathering procedures, simplya companionpiece to the sorts of empiricalresearch
whichare sufficiently well knownto expertsin research,but performed in Westernsocial science.This is notonlya mistake,
betweenactual eventsand presumedarrangements. but a dangerouscaricatureleading to a falsepresumptionof
This view of data has variouscontextualmeanings:a whole isomorphismbetween East and West. Ultimately,such a
networkofinterpreting, analyzing,and measuringtheaccuracy parallelismcan be nothingotherthana betrayalofsocialscience
of data is significantonly in a contextof implementation. as a standpointin its own right.Social sciencestandsin judg-
Proposalsforimplementation are themselvessubject to fairly mentof ideologiesof all sorts,carefullyweighingthe evidence
rigorousmechanismsof explanationand measurement. Beyond and renderingdiscussion rational-which means allowing
recognizingthe worthof data in relationto determining the differentpointsof view and, ultimately,beingable to discard
nature of a social system(in itselfsufficient justificationfor obsoletedogmaswithoutpoliticalrisk.That is whythe wealth
anypaper),a moresoberingquestionis howsocietiesand states of empirical research currentlybeing conducted in Soviet
arriveat decisionsabout domesticand foreignaffairswithout sociologyand carefullyreportedby Kolaja is stillnot the same
relianceupon the evidentiarybasis suppliedby data. If deci- as the growthof a freesociety.
sions taken directlyby a political apparatus or an economic Kolaja is properlyappreciativeof the great leaps forward
groupingare not mediatedby a data-gathering process (and made by our Soviet colleaguesin the face of personalas well
concomitantly by a policy-making cluster),thenthe basis for as professionalrisks.We must remainfirm,however,in our

376 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:36:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 commitment not to a vague notionoftheoryto practice,but to littlethatis newabout thesubjectand merelygoesoverground
the complexpracticeof all sortsof theories:criticalas well as that has been previously(and differently) coveredin greater
pure as well as applied, and innovativeas well
constructive, detail elsewhere.(Modestydoes notpreventme frommention-
as inherited. ing my own 1974 study,The Development of Sociologyin the
SovietUnion.) Moreover,he unfortunately presentsa picture
which,in addition to its factual mistakes/omissions, rather
byALEX SIMIRENKO colours the discussionof the role of sociologyin the Soviet
Department ofSociology,PennsylvaniaState University, Uni- context.
versityPark, Pa. 16802,U.S.A. 15 xi 77 What is "new" are his extensivereferences to the contents
The assumptionofcontrolofSovietsociologyby M. N. Rutke- of two early issues of the recentlypublishedjournal Sotsio-
vich in 1972,and the beginningof publicationof Sociological logicheskie Issledovaniya,but he gives the readerlittle oppor-
Researchin 1974,introduceda newstagein the developmentof tunityto formhis or her own opinionas to the "value" of the
Soviet sociology,detailed here by Kolaja. In the 1960s, I articlesmentioned.The fact that an article is "interesting"
sharedKolaja's hope forthe rise of a relativelyobjectiveand tells the readernothingof the criteriaof interest-interesting,
scientificallyorientedsociologyin the SovietUnion (Simirenko for example,to a Soviet area specialist or to a sociologist
1967,1969).In the 1970s,however,myinterpretation ofevents specialisingin social stratification, or both? (I wonder,in fact,
has been somewhatdifferent fromhis (Simirenko1973, 1975, whether it would not have been more profitableeitherto do a
1976,1977). real contentanalysisor to choosea fewarticlesand put them
In my view, the appearance of the journal Sociological in the contextof generalSoviet sociologicalworkratherthan
Researchsignaleda new commitment to rapid professionaliza- brieflylistinga seriesof articles.)While it is true that Soviet
tionand the end of an effort to establishsociologyas an intel- sociologistsawaited the publicationof theirown periodicalas
lectual discipline.It marksthe unquestionablerise of profes- a furthersign of theirown legitimacywithinthe Soviet aca-
sional sociologists,who are committedto one analyticscheme, demicworld,it seemsto me thatKolaja shouldhave mentioned
in basic agreementon the methodologyof concreteresearch, that other journals were publishingarticles on sociological
united in oppositionto "empiricism,"and dedicated to ful- topics long before1974. Thus very significantarticlesin the
fillingthe goals and directivesof the Party.The word"profes- field of sociologyhave appeared in Sotsial'nyeIssledovaniya
sional" is used herein its technicalmeaning.It does not refer (Social Research) since 1965,Chelovek i Obshchestvo (Man and
simplyto the occupationofa personor his particulartraining, Society)since 1966,VoprosyFilosofli(Problemsof Philosophy)
but emphasizes,among a number of special features,the since 1958,and Filosofskie Nauki (PhilosophicalSciences)since
individual'scommitment to public serviceand the predictable the mid-1960s.
and routinenatureof that service. Kolaja also fails to note that, at least since 1966, Soviet
The Partyand its overseersof sociologymade it ratherclear sociologists have oftencalledforan improvement in thetraining
fromthe beginningthat the principlesof value neutralityand of sociologists per se: the call is by no means new. Iadov
objectivitywere not acceptable. Until 1974,however,leading (1966:2,translationand emphasismine)has said, forexample,
Soviet sociologistswere able to get by withonly a superficial "The USSR Ministryof Higher and Specialised Secondary
conformity to thisposition.Whetherthiswas permittedin an Education obviously thinks sociology should continue to
attemptto establishthe credibilityof Soviet sociologistson develop'on a volunteerbasis.' Otherwiseit is difficult to explain
the internationalscene or whetherthe Party was simplynot why for the thirdyear now the Ministryis not reactingto
sufficiently unitedto imposeits controlis stilluncertain.What persistent appeals to offerthe appropriatespecialitiesin at
is importantis that,since the appearanceof the journal,some least threeof the country'suniversities-Moscow,Leningrad,
of the leading sociologistshave begun to participatein an and Novosibirsk-wherethereare trainedspecialists."
obvious campaign to establishsociologyas a Party science. Finally, Kolaja argues that Soviet sociologicalresearchis
Here are the wordsof a leadingSoviet familyspecialist,A. G. "politically oriented" and attempts to support this broad
Kharchev,whoservesas thejournal'seditor-in-chief (Kharchev truism/statement withfivepointsmade by Rutkevich,former
1974,translationmine): "The leadingmethodological principle director of the Academy of Sciences' Instituteof Sociological
of Marxist-Leninist sociologyis the principleof Communist Research. In my opinion,Points 1-3 do not in fact support
'party-ness,'which should be understoodin deeplydialectical Kolaja's statement,but,moreimportantly, it wouldhave been
termsas the connectionbetweensociologicalresearchand the betterif he had examinedactual researchfindingsratherthan
practical strugglefor socialismand communism, a conscious looked at an intentionallybroad political statement.In that
commitment of a scientistto communistideals." case, Kolaja would have seen the applied natureor problem-
It is myconclusionthattheParty'simpositionoffirmcontrol solving ethosof Soviet sociology.Fromhis articleit is unclear
over sociologyas an official professionhas resultedin (1) more what the politicalorientationof sociologicalworkactuallyis.
efficient censorshipofsociologicalmaterials,(2) fewerpublished
pieces with valuable empiricaldata on Soviet society,(3) a
certainideologicaluniformity ofpublications,and (4) a narrow- Reply
ness of publishedsubjects.Nevertheless,the workbeingpub-
lished since 1975 is in manyways moresatisfactory fromthe byJIRI KOLAJA
standpointof craftsmanship than theworkof the 1960s.There
Morgantown, W. Va., U.S.A. 17 i 78
has also been a build-up of more sophisticatedsociological
cadres, so that one no longerfeels that the whole discipline I appreciateall fiveofthecriticalcomments. Two pointsshould
restson just a dozenkeypeople. be added: First, there is some slight disagreementamong
sociologistsor would-besociologistsin the Soviet Union with
regardto certainmethodological issues,thoughnotwithregard
to "ideologicalproblems"(see the section"Methodologyand
byELIZABETH WEINBERG Technique of Sociological Investigation"in Sotsiologicheskie
LondonSchoolof Economicsand PoliticalScience,Houghton Issledovaniya).Secondly,I am pleased to note
that,in addition
St., LondonWC2A 2AE, England.12 XII 77 to this journal, three others that I have occasionallycarry
What is moststrikingabout Kolaja's remarksabout the state sociology-related articles: VoprosyFilosofli,FilosofskieNauki,
of sociologyin the Soviet Union is that the authordiscusses and the UkrainianFilosofs'kaDumka.

Vol. 19 * No. 2 * June1978 377

This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:36:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ReferencesCited
BELYAEV,E. V., G. I. SAGANENKO, Yu. A. DMITRIEv,and I. I.
GOLOD. 1966. Vsesoyuznyi Simpozium Sotsiologov (All-Union
SociologicalSymposium).VoprosyFilosofii20(10) :156-65.
BOVKUN,V. V. 1976. SSA pered otchetno-vybomoy konferenciey
(Soviet Sociological Association at a review conference).Sotsio-
logicheskieIssledovaniya,no. 2, pp. 202-3.
FILIPOV, F. R. 1976. "Izmeneniya v sotsial'nom oblike i sostave
sovetskojintelligentsii (Change in the social featuresand structure
of the Soviet intelligentsia),"in Problemyrazvitiyasotsial'noy
struktury obshchestva y SovetskomSoyuze i Pol'she (Problems of
the evolutionof the social structureof societyin the Soviet Union
and Poland). Edited by V. Vesolovskiyand M. N. Rutkevich.
Moscow: Nauka.
IADov, V. A. 1966. Sotsiologiya:Problemyi facty-otveststvennost'.
Literaturnaya Gazeta November12, p. 2. [EW]
KHARCHEV, A. G. 1974. Plany i perspektyvynovoho naukovoho
zhumalu (Plans and perspectivesfor a new scientificjournal).
FilosofskaDumka 5:95. [AS]
New York: Harcourt,Brace.
KROEBER, A. L. 1948. Anthropology.
[JH]
KRUZHKOV, V. S. Editor. 1975.Sotsiologiyai sovremennost' (Sociology
and the present).2 vols. Moscow: Nauka.
NAZIMOVA, A. K., and G. N. CHERKASOV. 1974. Sotsiologina promy-
shlennompredpriyatii(Sociologyin industrialenterprises).Sotsio-
logicheskieIssledovaniya,no. 1, pp. 117-25.
OsiPov, G. V. Editor. 1965-66.Sotsiologiyav SSSR (Sociologyin the
U.S.S.R.). 2 vols. Moscow: Mysl'.
OsiPov, G. V., and J. SZCZEPANSKI. Editors.1969.Sotsial'nyeproblemy
trudai proizvodstva: Sovetsko-polskoesravnitel'noeissledovanie(So- ZDRAVOMYSLOV, A. G., V. P. ROZHIN, and V. A. IADOV. Editors. 1967.
cial problemsofworkand production:A Soviet-Polishcomparative
study). Moscow: Mysl'/Warsaw:Ksiazka i Wiedza.
RUTKEVICH,M. N. 1976. 0 nekotorychitogach i perspektivach
deyatel'nostiInstitutaSotsiologicheskihIssledovaniyAN SSR (A
reviewand perspectiveof theactivitiesof the SociologicalResearch
Instituteof the Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R.). Sotsiologicheskie
Issledovaniya,no. 2, pp. 161-71.
SHUBKIN, V. N. 1969. "Sotsiologicheskie problemyvyboraprofessiy
(Sociological problems in choice of occupation)," in Sotsial'nye
378
This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:36:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
problemy trudai proizvodstva (Social problemsof workand produc-
tion). Edited by G. V. Osipov and J. Szczepanski, pp. 2-38.
Moscow: Mysl'/Warsaw:Ksiazka i Wiedza.
SIMIRENKO, ALEX.Editor. 1967.Sovietsociology: Historicalantecedents
and currentappraisals. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. [AS]
. Editor. 1969. Social thought in the Soviet Union. Chicago:
Quadrangle. [AS]
. 1973. Soviet and Americansociologyin the seventies.Studies
in Comparative Communism6:27-50. [AS]
i t. 1975. "Currentsociologicalresearchin Ukraine,"in Ukraine
in theseventies. Edited by Peter J. Potichnyj,pp. 137-46. Oakville,
Ont.: Mosaic Press. [AS]
. 1976. Sociologyin the Soviet Union: The state of the disci-
pline. Paper delivered at the annual meetingof the Canadian
Associationof Slavists,Quebec City,June 1. (Forthcomingin The
Soviet Union and East Europe into the '80's: Multidisciplinary
perspectives. Edited by William McGrath, Peter Potichnyj,and
Simon McInnes. Oakville,Ont.: Mosaic Press.) [AS]
. 1977. Report on sociologyin Soviet Ukraine. Nationalities
Papers 5:202-8. [AS]
SLESAROV, G. A. 1976. Sotsial'no-demograficheskie gruppyi sostave
sovetskogorabochego klassa (Social-demographicgroups in the
of
system theSovietworkingclass)," inProblemy razvitiyasotsial'noy
struktury obshchestva v Sovetskom Soyuzei Pol'she (Problemsof the
evolutionof the social structureof societyin the Soviet Union and
Poland). Edited by V. Vesolovskiy and M. N. Rutkevich,pp.
83-96. Moscow: Nauka.
WEINBERG, ELIZABETH. 1974. The development of sociologyin the
SovietUnion.London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
[EW]
Chelovek i egorabota(Man and his work). Moscow: Mysl'. (Trans-
lated into English as Man and his work,White Plains, N.Y.:
InternationalArtsand SciencesPress, 1970.)
ZVORYKIN, A. A. 1969. Nauka, obshchestvo i chelovek(Science,society,
and man). Institut KonkretnykhSotsial'nykhIssledovaniy AN
SSSR, Informatsionnyi Biulletin23.
. 1975. Voprosyteoriii praktikiorganizatsyi upravleniya naukoy
(Problemsof theoryand praxisof the organizationand administra-
tion of science). Moscow: Nauka.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY