<<

SPECIAL ISSUE: , the , and the

General Introduction

C Musya Glants and Pamela Kachurin

Overthe last quarter-century “ culture”has become asigniŽcant topic of scholarly inquiry. 1 Theabundance ofrecent scholarship within the category of“ culturalstudies” attests to the increasing salience ofculture in investiga- tions ofhistorical and political epochs. 2 tracethe complex matrixof factors that contribute toa particularhistorical moment, allowing us todiscern events and inuences thatoften go unnoticed. Therelationship between theSoviet Union and theWest during theCold Waris anexcellent example ofhow culture— both mass cultureand highculture— was employed as a mode of communication and manipulation. Thegoal of this special issue ofthe Journal ofColdW ar Studies is to illu- minatelesser-known facetsof the role played by highculture during theCold War.The articlesthat follow touchupon several importantthemes: theextent towhich the U.S. and Soviet governments relied on culturalproducts as polit-

1.In its broadest deŽ nition, culture is asystem of meaningsthat enables human beings to translate theirinstincts, urges, needs,and other propensities into representational and communicative struc- tures. This system includeslanguage, visual symbols, gestures, codes, ,and texts that a socialgroup createsand uses tocarry out its daily life and routines. See Marcel Danesi, Analyzing :An In- troductionand Handbook (Bloomington:Indiana Press, 1999).The articlesincluded in this issue employthe term culture toconnote products of“highculture” — speciŽcally the Ž nearts and lit- eraryexpression, which are produced byindividuals for theconsumption of andinterpretation by au- diences(viewers andreaders). These products areconsidered valuable based on their perceived quality andthe relatively high status of theircreators (artists) intheir own social contexts. This isa distinct category, usually separate—although not mutually exclusive—from “mass” or “popular” culture. 2.Recentexamples of theexpanding on culturalstudies asadisciplineand methodology in- clude:Ben Agger, CulturalStudies as CriticalTheory (London:Falmer Press, 1992);Simon During, TheCultural Studies Reader (New York:Routledge, 1999); and Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, Russian Cultural Studies: An Introduction (New York: , 1998). Journal of Cold War Studies Vol. 4, No. 1, Winter 2002, pp. 3–5 © 2002 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of

3 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/152039702753344799 by guest on 02 October 2021 Glants and Kachurin

icaltools; theauthority invested by thepopulace in culturalproducts and phenomena asrepositoriesof sociopolitical ;and theprominence of individuals operatingin thecultural sphere as representatives and creatorsof societal attitudes. Theimpact of W estern culturalproducts on theSoviet Union during the Cold Warhas rarely been studied in any depthby Western scholars, in part becauseof the paucity of evidence and in partbecause of limited interest. Yet itis widely acknowledged thatthe Soviet Union soughtto use both Western and Soviet culturaloutput to shape popular opinion. WesternŽ lms, , and literaturewere seized on by theSoviet authoritiesto demonstratethe al- leged decadence and shortcomings of Western . The ideological sym- pathiesof select representativesof W estern highculture, including Paul Robeson, Rockwell Kent, Pablo Picasso, and Jean-Paul Sartrewere exploited tolegitimize Communism. CulturalŽ guressuch as Louis Aragonand Bertold Brechtwere enlisted by theSoviet regimeas spokesmen forthe global “peace movement,”itself a vehicle forpropaganda. This is not tosuggest, however, thatthe implementation ofthese policies wasmonolithic oruniformly suc- cessful. Thearbitrary ,shifting,and occasionally ineffectivenature of these ac- tivities depended greatlyon theSoviet leadershipand on thestatus of rela- tions between the Soviet Union and the . Even whiledenigrating some aspectsof Western culture, the Soviet gov- ernment actively promoted the“ ”of W estern cultureto the Soviet public. At thesame time, theSoviet authoritiesinvoked Russian and Soviet music, , theater,and literatureto fostera mood ofcultural superiority both abroadand athome, whichwould facilitateofŽ cial efforts to fostera So- viet brand ofpatriotism,founded in parton fearand chauvinism. Soviet lead- ersalso hoped tosuggest that Soviet citizens, unlike theirW estern counter- parts,valued highculture and literaryendeavors over materialconcerns. Almost inevitably,however,these policies could—and arguablydid— have the opposite effect:They cultivated an intense curiosityabout and admirationof Western life. Thecraving for anything Westernand thedecreasing ability to keep Westerncultural production outof the Soviet Union undoubtedly helped spur the social reforms under Michail Gorbachev. 3 TheU.S. government’srelianceon culturalproduction— both highcul- tureand mass culture—as apsychological weaponin theCold Warhasbeen thesubject ofnumerous recentstudies. 4 TheUnited Statesexported itsown

3.For aninteresting argument to thiseffect, see StephenKotkin, Armageddon Averted:The Soviet Col- lapse, 1970–2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 4.Recentmonographs andanthologies include Peter Kuznick and James Gilbert, Rethinking ColdWar Culture (Washington:Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001.);Frances Stonor Saunders, TheCultural ColdW ar:The CIAand theW orldof and Letters. (New York:New Press, 1999);Elaine Marie

4 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/152039702753344799 by guest on 02 October 2021 Culture,the Soviet Union,and the Cold War

brand ofcultural values intheform of modern art,allegedly freefrom govern - mental proscription, technological innovation, and .The pol- icywas not alwaysfree of controversy athome, however,as Marilyn Kushner’s article makes clear. Theimplications ofCold Warideologies, in both Eastand West, reach into thecontemporary period and areripe for scholarly attention. The conicts and debates thatarose about culturalexports during theCold War areuseful, in retrospect,in showingthe multiple meanings ofcultural phe- nomena. Thepotential forcon icting or ambiguous interpretationsmade it difŽcult to use cultural products efŽcaciously as forms of propaganda. Wehope thatthis special issue promote furtheranalysis ofCold War cultureby historiansand political scientists, especially asmore documents in theformer Communist worldbecome available. Despite theŽ ne studies that haveappeared in recentyears, many aspectsof cultureduring theCold War remain unexplored.

McClarnandand Steve Goodson, TheImpact of theCold W ar on American PopularCulture (Carrollton,GA: StateUniversity of West Georgia,1999); W alterL. Hixson, Parting theCurtain: Propaganda, Culture,and theCold W ar,1945– 1961 (New York:St. Martin’s Press, 1997);and Wood Haut, Pulp Culture: Hardboiled Fiction and the Cold War (New York: Serpent’s Tail, 1995).

5 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/152039702753344799 by guest on 02 October 2021