Socialist Realism instead of Formalism : the Formation and Development of the Soviet Music Control System 1932-1950

Whereas it has been widely assumed in the public that the Soviet music policy system had a “top-down” structure of control and command that directly affected musical creativity, in fact my research shows that the relations between the different levels of the music policy system were vague, and the viewpoints of its representatives differed from each other. Because the representatives of the party and government organs controlling operas could not define which kind of music represented Socialist Realism, the system as it developed during the 1930s and 1940s did not function effectively enough in order to create such a centralised control of Soviet music, still less could Soviet operas fulfil the highly ambiguous aesthetics of Socialist Realism. I show that musical discussions developed as bureaucratic ritualistic arenas, where it became more important to reveal the heretical composers, making scapegoats of them, and requiring them to perform self-criticism, than to give directions on how to reach the artistic goals of Socialist Realism. When one opera was found to be unacceptable, this lead to a strengthening of control by the party leadership, which lead to more operas, one after the other, to be revealed as failures. I have studied the control of the composition, staging and reception of the opera case-studies, which remain obscure in the West despite a growing scholarly interest in them, and have created a detailed picture of the foundation and development of the Soviet music control system in 1932-1950. My detailed discussion of such case-studies as Ivan Dzerzhinskii’s The Quiet Don, Dmitrii Shostakovich’s Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District, Vano Muradeli’s The Great Friendship, Sergei Prokofiev’s Story of a Real Man, Tikhon Khrennikov’s Frol Skobeev and Evgenii Zhukovskii’s From All One’s Heart backs with documentary precision the historically revisionist model of the development of Soviet music. In February 1948, composers belonging to the elite of the Union of Soviet Composers, e.g. Dmitri Shostakovich and Sergei Prokofiev, were accused in a Central Committee Resolution of formalism, as been under the influence of western modernism. Accusations of formalism were connected to the criticism of the conciderable financial, material and social privileges these composers enjoyed in the leadership of the Union. With my new archival findings I give a more detailed picture of the financial background for the 1948 campaign. The independent position of the music funding organization of the Union of Soviet Composers (Muzfond) to decide on its finances was an exceptional phenomenon in the Soviet Union and contradicted the strivings to strengthen the control of Soviet music. The financial audits of the Union of Soviet Composers did not, however, change the elite status of some of its composers, except for maybe a short duration in some cases. At the same time the independence of the significal financial authorities of Soviet theatres was restricted. The cuts in the governmental funding allocated to Soviet theatres contradicted the intensified ideological demands for Soviet operas.

Silva Fennica Vol. 20, 1986.

Julkaistu Silva Fennica Vol. 20(4) -numeron liitteenä.

Ukrainan vuosien 1932-33 nälänhädän historiapolitiikka

Ukrainan presidentiksi nousi ns. oranssin vallankumouksen nosteessa Viktor Justsenko. Hänen presidenttikaudellaan (2005-2010) vuosien 1932-33 nälänhätä (holodomor) nousi keskeiseksi sekä sisä-, että ulkopolitiikan teemaksi. Holodomor, joka viittaa nälällä aiheutettuun tuhoon, pyrittiin tuomaan osaksi ukrainalaista kollektiivista muistia. Justsenkon aloitteesta säädettiin laki, jonka mukaan holodomor oli ukrainalaisten kansanmurha. Vuosina 1932-33 ympäri Neuvostoliittoa vallitsi nälänhätä. Ukrainalainen maaseutu kärsi pahoin nälänhädän seurauksista, sillä eri arvioiden mukaan 3,5-10 miljoonaa ukrainalaista menehtyi joko suoranaisesti tai välillisesti nälänhädän seurauksena. Ukrainan itsenäistyttyä nälänhätä, jota oli diasporassa alettu kutsua holodomoriksi (nälkätuho), nousi kansallisen historian keskeiseksi teemaksi. Ukrainalainen historioitsija Georgi Kasjanov on nimittänyt tätä uutta vaihetta historian kansallistamiseksi. Tässä työssä pohditaan sitä, miksi holodomor nostettiin keskeiseen asemaan presidentti Viktor Justsenkon valtakaudella. Keskeinen vastakkainasettelun lähtökohta on ollut itsenäisen Ukrainan ja Neuvostoliiton seuraajavaltion Venäjän suhtautuminen nälänhätään 1932-33. Ukrainalaisissa näkökulmissa on painottunut stalinistisen järjestelmän kritiikki, mikä toisaalta on saatettu tulkita myös koko kommunistisen aikakauden tuomitsemiseksi. Venäjällä taas nälänhätä on tulkittu useimmiten yleisneuvostoliittolaiseksi tragediaksi, joka ei kohdistunut erityisesti mitään tiettyä kansallisuutta vastaan. Tutkimuksen keskeinen lähtökohta on tarkastella ukrainalaisten ja venäläisten tulkintojen eroja ja sitä, millä tavoin holodomorilla on tehty politiikkaa. Tutkimusaineistona on käytetty ukrainalaisten osalta presidentti Justsenkon puheita, lakialoitteita ja muita julkilausumia, sekä eräiden yhteiskunnallisten toimijoiden ja historioitsijoiden kannanottoja. Venäläisen osapuolen tulkintoja on pyritty luomaan muutamien tutkimusten ja yhteiskunnallisten toimijoiden, sekä poliitikkojen lausumien pohjalta. Suurin osa aineistosta on kerätty venäjänkielisistä verkkolehdistä. Presidentti Justsenkolle vuosien 1932-1933 historiasta muodostui ase, jolla hän kävi omaa poliittista taisteluaan lännen puolesta itää vastaan. Välit Venäjään olivat viileät koko hänen presidenttikautensa ajan. Lähimmäksi presidentin kantaa holodomor-kysymyksessä tulivat diasporaukrainalaiset. Venäjällä kritisoitiin ankarasti Justsenkon tanssia haudoilla eli hänen tapaansa käyttää nälänhädän uhreja oman politiikkansa välineenä. Venäläiset korostivat nälänhädän tragediaa kaikkien Neuvostoliiton kansojen tragediana. Holodomor oli osa kansallisen historian uudelleenkirjoitusta ja kansakunnan rakentamisen prosessia. Justsenkon päämääränä oli lähentää Ukrainaa länteen, jolloin ukrainalaisen kansakunnan uhriasema antoi oikeutuksen sanoutua irti neuvostoajasta. Tietyssä mielessä holodomor-projekti oli venäläisvastainen, sillä se implisiittisesti tuki käsitystä venäläisistä rikollisina, kansanmurhan toimeenpanijoina.

Kansan raittiudeksi ja kotien onneksi : Naisten kieltolakimielipiteet ja toiminta kieltolain puolesta ja sitä vastaan 1919 - 1932

It is often maintained that the Prohibition Act (in force from 1 June 1919 to 5 April 1932) still influences both the Finnish alcohol policy and notions about alcohol. This study focuses on the development of women s opinions concerning Prohibition in Finland. What role did the formulation and expression of women s opinions and women's actions play in the final outcome of the Prohibition Act? What do the debate on Prohibition and women s activities for and against the legislation tell us about the status and possibilities of women to exert influence in the Finnish society of the Prohibition era? Women s opinions are particularly interesting since they deviated radically from what has generally been assumed. It was expected that the referendum of 1931 would result in a resounding vote of 100% in favour of Prohibition, but the outcome was a majority vote against it. Over 65% of the women who cast their vote in the referendum wanted a full repeal of Prohibition. The study approaches the history of Prohibition by combining methods and theories of the history of mentalities and social history with gender history. Women are examined as a heterogeneous group with dissimilar objectives and differing ways of acting and thinking. The research material consists of press materials, archival materials from organisations, personal materials and statistics from the Prohibition period. Both discourses and practices are examined; the object of the research is best described by Michel Foucault's concept of dispositif. When participating in the public debate on Prohibition, women based their right to express their opinions and take part in action on an ideological continuum spanning a hundred years, according to which home and family were central areas of women s interest. This idea was linked to questions of morality and social policy. On the other hand, women presented themselves as working taxpayers, voters and equal citizens. The most crucial issue in women's discussions was whether Prohibition improved or worsened the temperance of fathers, husbands and sons. The dichotomies town dweller - countryside dweller, Swedish-speaking Finnish-speaking, and middle class - working class were highly significant backgrounds both as factors dividing women and in public discussions regarding Prohibition. The 1931 referendum showed that the lines of demarcation drawn during the preceding debate did not materialise in political action in line with these dichotomies: the dispositif did not correspond to the discourse. Contrary to what was expressed in public, a great number of women among the labour and rural classes, among inland inhabitants and among Finnish-speakers were also against Prohibition. The media and organisations defended temperance and Prohibition almost until the end of the Prohibition era. This discourse was in conflict with the discourse of everyday conversations and practices in which alcohol was present.