National in Form, Socialist in Content: USSR National and Language Policies in the Early Period
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00104 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900104 CILDIAH-2019 National in Form, Socialist in Content: USSR National and Language Policies in the Early Period Elena Shelestyuk1,* 1Chelyabinsk State University, 129 Bratiev Kashirinykh st., 454001 Chelyabinsk, the Russian Federation Abstract. The article traces the early Soviet national and language policies based on historical, historiographic, sociological, and sociolinguistic sources. The post-revolutionary 1917 policies in the USSR involved autonomy, federalization, linguistic diversity. The 1920s-1930s inaugurated the economic level-off of the outskirts with the center; indigenization of education and administration; development of native literatures, press, theatres; language construction; latinization. The 1930s marked strengthening of Russian (and Union-republican) languages, conceptualization of “convergence in a Soviet nation”, cyrillization. We conclude that USSR’s national and language policies reveal a pattern fluctuating from liberal (democratic self-governance of nationality territorial units, non-script languages construction, use of nationality languages, development of nationality media, cultures, literatures) to etatist (strengthening of the major nationality language, return to unifying patriotic ideology and education, civic consolidation). imposition of Russian (T. G. Winner, A. Bennigsen, Ch. Lemercier-Quelquejay, E. E. Bacon, E. G. Lewis, 1 Introduction S. Crisp, M. Kirkwood), though among them there are Despite a considerable number of works devoted to the works expressing deserved sympathy for the national Russian and, particularly, Soviet national and language and language situation in the USSR (G. Imart, policies in the West, they have often been liable to far- B. Comrie). The sharp division between the “good” fetched and arbitrary interpretations. As V. M. Alpatov 1920s and the “bad” past 1930 is traced in most non- points out, the majority of Western works, primarily Russian works on the Soviet language policy. For written by scholars who are not directly Slavicists or instance, typical of the collective work [2] is the contrast Türkologists, are characterized by the lack of knowledge between S. Crisp's benevolent article on the early period of Soviet material [1]. and I. T. Kreindler's rather rigid in tone article on later There are two major trends in the Western years. Some of the second category of scholars pay due interpretation of Russia's national and language policies. homage to the theoretical value, methodological The works by L. Laurat, J. Ornstein, E. R. Goodman, accuracy and practical efficiency of the linguistic C. Humphry, most articles published in the collective method, elaborated by Soviet theorists and practitioners volumes Language Planning [2], Sociolinguistic of language planning. E.g. V. Reznik [4] argues that perspectives on Soviet national languages… [3] and the “…Soviet linguists’ contribution is regarded as one of like exhibit the intent of their authors to reduce all the the earliest examples of a sociolinguistic approach to various processes, which took place in the Soviet Union language, on the one hand, and as a more productive as regards the national and language building, to implementation of Marxism in linguistics, on the other.” russification. They disregard such major processes This second group of authors outwardly strive for occurring in the USSR as indigenization – statutory objectivity, but their conclusions are seldom conversion of nationalities’ governance, culture, corroborated by authentic evidence. Then, romanticizing education, literature to their native languages, wide the Soviet language policy of the 1920s-1930s involvement of the local population in administrative (democratic, but bordering on state interests denial), activities, languages building and normalization, opening these scholars do not answer the questions: why is the of national schools, universities, creation/development of use of foreign scripts for the languages of the peoples of nationalities' literatures and theatres, publication of the USSR considered more democratic than the use of books, periodicals in these languages, introducing them the native Cyrillic script; what language other than in mass media etc. – the processes which continued and Russian (the language of the overwhelming majority) developed in the 1920s through the 1980s. was it natural to apply as the language of interethnic The second trend is represented by scholars who communication in the polyethnic country that was the often assess the two decades after the revolution Soviet Union? positively but criticize the subsequent period as * Corresponding author: [email protected] © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). SHS Web of Conferences 69, 00104 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900104 CILDIAH-2019 2 Materials and methods 4 Discussion We formulate our aim as presenting an objective factual Below we expose and analyze the major historical, survey of national and language policies of the early nationality-construction, language-planning, sociological USSR, highlighting the major stages, revealing cause- and sociolinguistic views and data provided in the effect connections. This enables us to see both the sources we refer to. general patterns of national and language development and how details fit into them. 4.1 Early 20th c. National and Language Issues Our article is based on historical, historiographic, in Russia: Views, Debates and Practices sociological and sociolinguistic sources. The larger part of materials and theoretical sources we use are Russian After the 1905 revolution there were arguments how and those of the national republics of the former USSR. Russian national and language policies should develop. We use the method of historiographic analysis of In the State Duma Monarchists insisted on a single state sources devoted to national and language policy, the language, law and school; Octoberists recognized method of sociolinguistic sources analysis, the method of equality of rights of all Russia citizens without periodization, the chronological method, subsidiary are distinction of nationality or religion, but excluded the discourse analysis and textological methods. We put federalism; Cadets advocated free use of languages and the evidence gleaned in historical, sociological and dialects in public life and state-supported non-territorial sociolinguistic perspectives. We seek to elucidate national cultural associations; Socialist-Revolutionaries debatable points from different aspects. (Mensheviks) advocated democratic federal republics with national-territorial autonomies. The Russian Social- 3 Results Democratic Labor group (RSDRP, Bolsheviks) advocated the principle of the equality of nations and the The USSR’s national and language policies reveal a right of nations to self-determination to the extent of pattern fluctuating from liberal (democratic self- secession. V. I. Lenin “went all the way from the governance of nationality territorial units, use of confidence in the benefits of a unitary state prior to the nationality languages, development of nationality media, First World War, to the recognition of the inevitability of cultures, literatures, non-script languages construction the federation…” [5]. He generally advocated larger and normalization) to etatist (strengthening of the major historical nations-states but demanded full civil equality nationality language, return to unifying patriotic of nationalities and ethnic groups united by proletarian ideology and education, civic consolidation). solidarity. This pattern depends on cycles of national calm and This dialectic implied policy according to the logic of prosperity alternating with situations of external/internal the moment contingent on expediency for the workings threats. Besides, the Russian-strengthening trend in the classes. Unalterable were the principles of proletarian USSR prevailed when there was a focus on internationalism, national equality and democracy. In modernization and technological progress. There was an language policy Bolsheviks proceeded from the same urgent need for a language which has accumulated the principles. There was assumed to be no mandatory state 1 conceptual-linguistic, terminological and discourse language . Schools should educate the population in all material providing for the up-to-date education, local languages, and a law should be included in the technology and science development, thus the Russian Constitution protecting the rights of national minorities. language came to the fore. Russian taught as a language Compliant with this idea, in the Soviet period the of interethnic communication was intended to be Russian language was given no official status; the term reciprocally beneficial for linguocultures. This was “language of interethnic communication”, entering into achieved through fiat establishment of linguistic equality use in the 1970s, was never legislated in the USSR [6]. principle, consolidation of minority languages, After the 1917 Great October Socialist Revolution, indigenization of all high spheres of communication in one of the first documents was the Declaration of Rights these languages, encouragement of publications in them, of the Peoples of Russia, which proclaimed the free making them official in their territorial-administrative