BETWEEN CREATION and CRISIS: SOVIET MASCULINITIES, CONSUMPTION, and BODIES AFTER STALIN by Brandon Gray Miller a DISSERTATION Su
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BETWEEN CREATION AND CRISIS: SOVIET MASCULINITIES, CONSUMPTION, AND BODIES AFTER STALIN By Brandon Gray Miller A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of History – Doctor of Philosophy 2013 ABSTRACT BETWEEN CREATION AND CRISIS: SOVIET MASCULINITIES, CONSUMPTION, AND BODIES AFTER STALIN By Brandon Gray Miller The Soviet Union of the 1950s and 1960s existed in a transitional state, emerging recently from postwar reconstruction and on a path toward increasing urbanity, consumer provisioning, and technological might. Modernizing rhetoric emphasized not only these spatial and material transformations, but also the promise of full-fledged communism’s looming arrival. This transformational ethos necessitated a renewal of direct attempts to remold humanity. Gender equality—or, at the very least, removing bourgeois strictures on women—remained a partially unfulfilled promise. Technological advances and the development of Soviet industrial capacity offered a new means of profoundly altering the lives of Soviet men and women. As other scholars have noted, Soviet women were the most obvious targets of these campaigns, but they were not alone in these projects. This dissertation argues that the Soviet state also directed intensive campaigns to remodel male consumptive and bodily practices in order to rid them of politically and socially destructive tendencies, making them fit for the modern socialist civilization under construction. Rooted in, but divergent from, Bolshevik novyi byt campaigns and Stalinist kul’turnost efforts, Soviet authorities actively sought to craft productive male citizens of a modern mold freed of the rough and coarse habits associated with working-class and village masculinities. Many of men targeted in these campaigns fell short of these stated aims. Instead, they pursued and produced their own images of masculinity outside of these official reconstructive efforts. Thus, this dissertation places malleable images of masculinity at the intersection of post-Stalinist politics, economics, material culture, and sexuality by analyzing a wide range of previously classified Komsomol archival documents, letters to the Supreme Soviet, Soviet state records, published memoirs, newspapers, and literature. Copyright by BRANDON GRAY MILLER 2013 for LDP and PDP v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For me, the dissertation experience proved quite humbling. During the course of researching and writing this dissertation, my travels took me across three continents of archives and libraries without which none of this would have been possible. Galina Mikhailovna Tokareva at the Komsomol wing of RGASPI tolerated months of fumbling research and halting Russian as I figured out the nuts and bolts of doing this project. My research also would not have been feasible without receipt of the Milton Muelder Graduate Fellowship. I am indebted to the staffs working at the libraries of Michigan State University, Southern Methodist University, and the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Pietermaritzburg, as well as the Russian National Library and the Russian Public Historical Library. Special thanks are due to the Interlibrary Loan staff at SMU for tolerating my seemingly endless requests after our move to Texas. I will also be eternally grateful to Dennis Cordell for lending me an office on campus in which to finish writing. The historians at Michigan State proved quite dedicated to graduate training and created a wonderful atmosphere for learning. I’m lucky to have Lewis Siegelbaum as my supervisor. A model researcher and teacher, he generously shared his inexhaustible knowledge at all points. His ideas have profoundly shaped my understanding of the Russian past in ways that he may not even recognize. Aminda Smith’s histories of sexualities seminar during my first year of graduate school opened my eyes to new ways of approaching history and set my research agenda on its current path. Keely Stauter-Halsted and Matthew Pauly were always positive and supportive. I would also like to thank Karrin Hanshew, Sean Forner, Laura Fair, and Pero Dagbovie for their help along the way. vi In Russia, our improvised and ever-revolving kruzhok of historians made the process of living and working in a (at times, very) foreign country infinitely more enjoyable. I’d like to thank in particular Natalie Belsky, Seth Bernstein, Ian Lanzilliotti, Misha Kogan, Kelly Kolar, Dan Newman, Anne O’Donnell, Kat and Jon Reischl, Flora Roberts, and Jeremiah Wishon for providing companionship and laughs over the long Moscow winter. Of course, I must thank all of those who did the same during the four years of my life spent in East Lansing. Many thanks are due to Carlos Aleman, Andrew Barsom, Joe Genetin-Pilawa, Lindsey Gish, Bre and Josh Grace, Melissa Hibbard, Alison Kolodzy, Jenni Marlow, Sean McDaniel, Devlin Scofield, Micalee Sullivan, Tim Weber, and Michal Wilczewski. I’d also be remiss in not thanking Erin Hochman in this capacity as well, as she’s made our acclimation to Dallas so much easier. I must single out Kitty Lam and Ben Sawyer for sharing in this process from step one. Our collective experiences of studying and debating Russian history, as well as grieving over setbacks and failures, have done more for my intellectual processes than anything else. It is customary here to thank one’s partners or families for sustaining them throughout this process. And it is true—without my family’s unquestioning support and unflagging love of spirited debate, I would have never gotten to this point. To Jill my appreciation remains greater. Not just for carefully reading nearly every word committed to countless drafts and listening to seemingly endless monologues about Soviet history. Not just for supporting me through the darkest hours of dissertating. But for also keeping me engaged in a world outside. vii PREFACE The central idea behind this study sprang from a simple question—what and how did Soviet men consume? More to the point how did the growth and development of light industry and the transformative nature of Soviet power during the 1950s and 1960s affect male consumptive habits? These questions appeared in my mind in a moment of eureka sometime during the long months of reading for my candidacy exams, largely as a result of pondering the implications of some of the fundamentals of queer theory to the broader Soviet experience outside of the realm of sexuality. Uncoupling essentialized assumptions about the relationship between gender and bodies—in some ways the heart of that diverse body of scholarship—prompted my desire to investigate the ways in which men entered the consumptive realm. Only traces of the pioneering work of individuals such as Judith Butler, Judith Halberstam, and David Halperin (to name a few) remain in this dissertation, but it felt necessary to acknowledge their influence in spawning my earliest impulses for writing. These two questions posed above position this study between two overarching ideas about Soviet conceptions of hegemonic masculinity. On one pole, there is the image of the rugged, heroic worker toiling in hostile environs. On the other, is the “man in crisis”, a creature hotly debated in popular media during the last Soviet decades. The problem with either of these figures is that they are mere archetypes, practically mythical in nature. Probing the ways in which men consumed and their consumptive patterns in turn replicated certain visions of masculinity serves to bring us closer to a picture of the lifeworld of men living and working under Soviet socialism. Yet, persistent material deficits and disparities between the Muscovite center and the Soviet hinterlands, among other issues, complicate this pursuit. viii Encountering the archives with all of these ideas circulating in my head presented a number of challenges. Masculinities simultaneously appeared everywhere and nowhere. In the initial weeks of research, this dizzying array of potential source materials proved overwhelming. I then devised a strategy to overcome the increasingly insurmountable task at hand. I decided to read as broadly as possible and see what categories the authorities creating the archive found to be essential. The on-going declassification of Communist youth materials at the beginning of my research proved fortuitous, as it allowed access to previously hidden materials detailing sensitive (and often unsavory) aspects of Soviet life. These materials provided a window into the fears and anxieties of authorities monitoring perceived changes in youth behavior and attitudes and provided a jumping-off point to begin narrowing my searches. Much of what is written in the chapters that follow focuses on Slavic men living in urban areas of European Russia. Occasional references to Central Asia, Siberia, and the Caucasus appear, but the majority of the sources examined in the course of research pertain to the former. All the same, this dissertation explores a number of attempts by party-state authorities to engage with male practices to remold and cultivate unified and properly Soviet attributes as whole. As such the study that follows does not pretend to be a definitive history of male consumptive habits in a state (and a system) increasingly wrapped up in material consumption. By selecting topics such as sex, alcohol abuse, drug use/addiction, and clothing for discussion, I’ve pursued the leads given to me by the authorities writing the various reports held in the archive. Moreover, these themes readily spring to