Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Communist Party and Soviet Science pp 1–14Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Introduction: A Theoretical Framework

  • Chapter

  • 21 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Soviet History and Society ((SSHS))

Abstract

It probably would have been easier and safer to make this a purely empirical study, a straightforward description of the formal and informal behaviour of the party institutions and personnel involved in science management. However, two factors have encouraged me to devote some attention to theoretical questions. Firstly, there is the degree of disagreement in the West on the correct theoretical approach to the study of Soviet politics. This has reached the stage where one feels almost obliged to take a stand. Certainly, the issues raised must be considered by anyone claiming to be interested in gaining a genuine understanding of the way the Soviet system works. Secondly, two almost contradictory approaches can be taken to the study of Soviet science. We can concentrate on the ideological and political control of science, something which will produce shocking results for those reared in the Western tradition of ‘free’ science. Or we can concentrate on the involvement of powerful science bodies like the Academy of Sciences in the struggle for bureaucratic power and influence. This could well produce a picture that will look more familiar to those who know Western science politics. Which approach we take will very likely be determined by a preconceived view of the way the Soviet Union works, and the findings will almost certainly confirm that preconceived view. For a more balanced approach, we must be aware of

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. C. J. Friedrich and Z. K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Praeger, New York, 1966) 2nd edition, p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For a review of the totalitarian model, see T. H. Rigby, ‘“Totalitarianism” and change in communist systems’, Comparative Politics, vol. 4, no. 3 (April 1972) pp. 433–53.

    Google Scholar 

  3. L. Schapiro, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1970) 2nd edition, pp. 619–29

    Google Scholar 

  4. B. Meissner, ‘The Soviet Union and its area of hegemony and influence’, in H. J. Veen et al. Is Communism Changing? (Hase & Koehler, Mainz, 1981) pp. 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. Nelidov, ‘Ideokraticheskoe soznanie i lichnost’, in Samosoznanie. Sbornik statei (Khronika, New York, 1976) pp. 117–51.

    Google Scholar 

  6. For an example of such an approach, see P. N. Wrinch, ’science and politics in the USSR: the genetics debate’, World Politics, vol. 3, no. 4 (July 1951) pp. 486–519.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For a brief but devastating critique of the ideological view, see D. Joravsky, ‘Bosses and scientists’, Problems of Communism, vol. 16, no. 1 (January-February 1967) pp. 72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Shtromas, Political Change and Social Development. The case of the Soviet Union (Lang, Frankfurt/Main and Bern, 1981) p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Popovsky, Science in Chains. The crisis of science and scientists in the Soviet Union today (Collins and Harvill, London, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  10. See also W. D. Connor, ‘Differentiation, integration, and political dissent in the USSR’, in R. L. Tokes (ed.), Dissent in the USSR. Politics, ideology and people (Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore and London, 1975) ch. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. For example Popovsky, op. cit.; A. Nekrich, Otreshis’ ot strakha. Vospominaniia istorika (Overseas Publications Interchange, London, 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Ya. Azbel, Refusenik. Trapped in the Soviet Union (Hamish Hamilton, London, 1981)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Z. A. Medvedev, Mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo uchenykh i natsiona Vnye granitsy. Taina perepiski okhraniaetsia zakonom (Macmillan, London and Basingstoke, 1972); Soviet Science (Oxford UP, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  14. For example, C. Zirkle, Death of a Science in Russia (University of Philadelphia Press, 1949).

    Google Scholar 

  15. V. Turchin, The Inertia of Fear and the Scientific World View (Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1981) p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. T. H. Rigby, ‘A conceptual approach to authority, power and policy in the Soviet Union’, in T. H. Rigby, A. Brown and P. Reddaway (eds), Authority, Power and Policy in the USSR. Essays dedicated to Leonard Schapiro (Macmillan, London and Basingstoke, 1983) ch. 2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. F. J. Fleron, ‘Co-optation as a mechanism of adaption to change: the Soviet political leadership system’, in R. E. Kanet (ed.), The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies (Free Press, New York, 1971) ch. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. G. Meyer, ‘USSR, Incorporated’, in D. W. Treadgold (ed.), The Development of the USSR. An exchange of views (University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1964) pp. 21–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See also A. G. Meyer. The Soviet Political System: an interpretation, (Random House, New York. 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  20. T. H. Rigby, ‘Politics in the mono-organizational society’, in A. C._Janos (ed.), Authoritarian Politics in Communist Europe. Uniformity and diversity in one-party states (Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1976) p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. Schmitter,_’still the century of corporatism?’, Review of Politics vol. 36, no. 1 (January 1974) pp. 93–4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. V. Bunce and J. M. Echols III, ’soviet politics in the Brezhnev era: “pluralism” or “corporatism”?’ in D. R. Kelley (ed), Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era (Praeger, New York, 1980) ch. 1

    Google Scholar 

  23. V Bunce, ‘The Political economy of the Brezhnev era. The rise and fall of corporatism’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 13, pt 2 (April 1983) pp. 129–58.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See also G. Lembruch, ‘Interest intermediation in capitalist and socialist systems. Some structural and functional perspectives in comparative research’, International Political Science Review, vol. 4, no. 2 (1983) pp. 153–72

    Google Scholar 

  25. and J. F. Hough, ‘Pluralism, corporatism and the Soviet Union’, in S. G. Solomon (ed.), Pluralism in the Soviet Union. Essays in honour of H. Gordon Shilling (Macmillan, London and Basingstoke, 1983) ch. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  26. The main discussion of interest theory took place in the early 1970s, principally in the journal Ekonomicheskie nauki. The discussion was brought to an end in 1972, but in friendly and positive terms, and it would seem that the categories analysed in the discussion and their practical implications are considered to be still valid. For the article concluding the discussion, see Ekonomicheskie nauki, 5/72, pp. 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See also my unpublished paper, ‘A Soviet interest system’, Department of Political Science, RSSS, Australian National University, Canberra, April 1974, and R. J. Hill, Soviet Politics, Political Science and Reform (Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1980) pp. 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Barrington Moore, Terror and Progress USSR. Some sources of change and stability in the Soviet dictatorship (Harvard UP, Cambridge, Mass., 1954) pp. 188–9.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. For some general accounts of technocracy, see J. Meynaud, Technocracy (Faber, London, 1968)

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. Ellul, The Technological Society (Cape, London, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  31. See J. F. Hough. ‘The bureaucratic model and the nature of the Soviet system’, Journal of Comparative Administration, vol. 5, no. 2 (August 1973) p. 140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. For some specific and detailed studies of the technocratic challenge to the party, see A. Parry, The New Class Divided. Science and technology versus communism (Macmillan, New York 1966)

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Garder, Die Agonie des Sowjetsystems (Ullstein, 1965); Shtromas, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Robert McNamara, as US Secretary for Defense, expressed the matter well: ‘The possibilities that welled up out of the technological program and the ideas and proposals put forth by the technologists eventually created a set of options that was so narrow in the scope of its alternatives and so strong in its thrust that the political decisions makers had no real independent choice in the matter.’ Quoted in H. F. York, The Advisors. Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (Freeman, San Francisco, 1976) p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. P. Gehlen, ‘Group theory and the study of Soviet politics’, in S. I. Ploss (ed.), The Soviet Political Process. Aims, techniques, and examples of analysis (Ginn, Waltham, Mass., 1971) pp. 40–1.

    Google Scholar 

  36. R. J. Hill. T. Dunmore, K. Dawisha, ‘The USSR. The revolution reversed?’, in L. Holmes (ed.), The Withering Away of the State? Party and state under communism (Sage, London and Beverly Hills, 1981) pp. 202–3.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. F. Hough, ‘The party apparatchiki’, in H. G. Skilling and F Griffiths (eds), Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton UP, 1971) ch. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  38. J. J. Schwartz and W. R. Keech, ‘Group influence and the policy process in the Soviet Union’, American Political Science Review, vol. 62, no. 3 (September 1968) pp. 840–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. T. Gustafson, ‘Environmental conflict in the USSR’, in D. Nelkin (ed.). Controversy. Politics of technical decisions (Sage, London and Beverly Hills, 1979) ch. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  40. P. H. Solomon, Soviet Criminologists and Criminal Policy. Specialists in policy-making (Macmillan, London and Basingstoke, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. Lowenhardt, Decision Making in Soviet Politics (Macmillan, London and Basingstoke, 1981).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. For example, T. Dunmore, The Stalinist Command Economy. The Soviet state apparatus and economic policy, 1945–53 (Macmillan, London and Basingstoke, 1980)

    Google Scholar 

  43. W. O. McCagg, Stalin Embattled, 1943–1948 (Wayne State UP, Detroit, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  44. See also D. E. Langsam and D. W. Paul, ’soviet politics and the group approach: a conceptual note’, Slavic Review, vol. 31, no. 1 (March 1972) p. 137; Shtromas, op. cit., pp. 68–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. See the pioneering works written and edited by H. Gordon Skilling. H. G. Skilling, ’soviet and communist politics: a comparative approach’, Journal of Politics, vol. 22, no. 2 (May 1960) pp. 300–13; Skilling and Griffiths, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  46. J. F. Hough. ‘The Soviet system. Petrification or pluralism?’, Problems of Communism, no. 2 (March-April 1972) pp. 27–8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. For support for his view, see E. Jones, ‘Committee decision making in the Soviet Union’, World Politics’, vol 36, no. 2 (January 1984) p. 165; Connor in Tokes, op cit., p. 149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. See W. E. Odom, ‘A dissenting view on the group approach to Soviet politics’, World Politics, vol. 28, no. 4 (July 1976) p. 555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. For example, F. J. Fleron, ‘Representation of career types in Soviet political leadership’, in R. B. Farrell (ed.) Political Leadership in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (Aldine, Chicago, 1970) pp. 117–20.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See L. L. Lubrano, ’soviet science specialists: professional roles and policy involvement’, in R. B. Remnek (ed.), Social Scientists and Policy Making in the USSR (Praeger, New York, 1977) pp. 60–1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of Birmingham, UK

    Stephen Fortescue (Research Fellow)

Authors
  1. Stephen Fortescue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1986 Stephen Fortescue

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fortescue, S. (1986). Introduction: A Theoretical Framework. In: The Communist Party and Soviet Science. Studies in Soviet History and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08059-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08059-5_1

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-08061-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-08059-5

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation