Advertisement

The Development and Orientation of French Sovietology

  • Robert Desjardins
Part of the St Antony’s/Macmillan Series book series

Abstract

The question of the development, or rather the under-development, of French Sovietology will constitute the fulcrum upon which a good part of this first chapter will turn. Soviet studies in France have often been considered by French scholars themselves to be relatively underdeveloped and backward. Thus, even though this book is essentially concerned with post-World War Two studies, it is appropriate to pay some attention to French work in this field prior to 1945. The weight of the past, with its traditions and specific features, cannot be overlooked. This kind of ‘genealogical’ scrutiny provides a necessary perspective within which to view French Sovietology in the immediate post-war decade. Even a brief scrutiny of this earlier period reveals that the field of Soviet studies had, in comparative terms, not been endowed with substantial scholarly or material resources.

Keywords

Political Science Communist Party Soviet Study French Intellectual Slavonic Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Conseil de direction, ‘Notre programme’, Le Monde slave, no. 1 (November 1924) p. 7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    André Mazon, ‘Slavonic studies in France’, The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. XXV, no. 64 (November 1946) p. 210.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Bonamour, ‘Soviet and East European Studies in France’, in A. Buchholz (ed.), Soviet and East European Studies in the International Framework — Organization, Financing and Political Relevance (New York: Transnational Publishers, 1982) p. 51.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The reasons why Denis felt so strongly about ending the publication of his periodical were summarised as follows by Eisenmann and his collaborators: ‘it is out of decency … out of fear of undermining a just cause by continuing to plead it when circumstances play so strongly against it. Such a defence would not only be bound to be inefficient, but would also appear as an act of awkward provocation. Freed from the domination of the new masters of Russia, German armies are preparing for the final assault on France; would it have been the right time in France … to demonstrate the necessity and benefits of the French-Slavic solidarity?’ See Conseil de direction, Le Monde slave, no. 1 (November 1924) p. 3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alfred Fichelle, ‘Origines et développement de l’Institut d’études slaves (1919–1949)’, Revue des études slaves, vol. 27 (1951) p. 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Louis Eisenmann, ‘Slavonic Studies in France’, The Slavonic Review, vol. I, no. 2 (December 1922) p. 299.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conseil de direction, Le Monde slave, no. 1 (November 1924) p. 9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid., p. 16.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid., p. 6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid., pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marcel Mauss, ‘Socialisme et bolchévisme’, Le Monde slave, no. 2 (February 1925) pp. 201–22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    André Pierre, ‘Le XIVe Congrès du parti communiste russe’, Le Monde slave, 3ème Année, no. 2 (February 1926) pp. 274–93.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jules Legras, ‘La politique de nationalités du gouvernement soviétique en Ukraine’, Le Monde slave, 3ème Année, no. 11 (November 1926) pp. 317–19.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Méquet and André Pierre, ‘La femme en Russie soviétique’, Le Monde slave, 4ème Année, nos. 11–12 (November–December 1927) pp. 419–41.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    André Pierre, ‘En U.R.S.S. — La vie politique, économique et intellectuelle (janvier-février 1929)’, Le Monde slave (March 1929) pp. 457–80;Google Scholar
  16. ‘La vie politique, économique et intellectuelle en U.R.S.S.’, Le Monde slave (April 1929) pp. 145–60; (May 1929) pp. 302–20; (July 1929) pp. 135–60; (August 1929) pp. 303–20; (September 1929) pp. 441–53; (October 1929) pp. 103–121; (November 1929) pp. 271–284; (December 1929) pp. 450–466.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Paul Olberg, ‘Le Komsomol’, Le Monde slave, 8ème Année (Tome II) no. 2 (May 1931) pp. 280–8.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    ‘La politique de Stalin’, Le Monde slave, 7ème Année (Tome I) no. 1 (January 1930) pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Paul Olberg, ‘La seconde révolution agraire russe’, Le Monde slave, 8ème Année (Tome III) no. 2 (August 1931) pp. 304–16.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    André Pierre, ‘La presse de l’U.R.S.S. en 1932’, Le Monde slave, 9ème Année (Tome m) no. 7 (July 1932) pp. 115–29.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    André Pierre, ‘L’Académie des Sciences de l’U.R.S.S.’, Le Monde slave, 10èmeAnnée (Tome III) no. 7 (July 1933) pp. 90–104.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    B.X., ‘La récolte en U.R.S.S. en 1933’, Le Monde slave, 10ème Année (Tome m) no. 7 (July 1933) pp. 104–14.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    For instance, in sociologist Emile Sicard’s view, ‘[Between 1920 and 1945], our sociological writings devote no more than three or four lines to such socio-economic phenomena as the Mir and the Kolkhoz’.Google Scholar
  24. See Emile Sicard, ‘Réflexions sur les études françaises de Sociologie des peuples slaves’, Sociologie et Droit Slaves, no. 1 (December 1945) pp. 16 and 7.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    Richard Szawloski, review of Annuaire de l’URSS. Droit-Economie-Sociologie-Politique-Culture. Volumes or 1965, 1966 and 1967. (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1966–1967– 1968) in Soviet Studies, vol. XXI, no. 2 (October 1969) p. 260.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Mme Françoise Héritier-Augé, of the Collège de France, noted that, prior to the 1930s (with the exception of naturalists), there was a strange lack of interest in African matters among French scholars. See M. K., ‘L’Afrique, enfin’, Le Monde, 1 March 1983, p. 1.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    A. Leroy-Beaulieu published, at the turn of the last century, L’Empire des Tsars et Les Russes. This book has often been hailed as an important contribution of French scholarship on Russia.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Richard Szawlowski and Hanna Terlecka, ‘Western Research on Russia until 1939: 1. Developments up to 1914’, Canadian Slavonic Papers, vol. IX, no. 2 (1967) p. 167. Unsurprisingly, our survey of the contents from 1906 to 1936 of the Revue des Sciences Politiques, a periodical published with the collaboration of the Ecole’s professors and former students, has revealed only a handful of articles relating to Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    S. Hoffman, W. Leontieff and H. Tajfel, Social Sciences Policy — France — Examiners’ Report (Paris: OECD, 1975) p. 195.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    M. Pollak, Social Sciences Policy — France-Background Report (Paris: OECD, 1975) p. 55.Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    Boris Souvarine (one of the founders of the PCF) was for three years a member of the Secretariat and Presidium of the Communist International, from which he was expelled in 1924 on grounds of indiscipline. His years in Moscow taught him much about the nature of the emerging Soviet regime and, in effect, instigated a process which caused him to radically alter his thinking about Communism. As Claude Roy has recently written, ‘His Russian years, his familiarity with Lenin and Trotsky, as well as his friendship with Kollontai, Riazanov … enabled him to get a thorough knowledge and understanding of the new Russian society, the new dominant Soviet class and of the emerging regime of arbitrariness, intimidation and oppression’. See Claude Roy, ‘Le premier homme’, Le Nouvel Observateur, no. 994 (25 November 1983) p. 55. Souvarine died in 1984.Google Scholar
  32. For a brief biographical profile of Souvarine see Michel Heller, ‘Boris Souvarine 1895–1984’, Survey, vol. 28, no. 4 (1984) pp. 198– 204.Google Scholar
  33. 30.
    B. Souvarine, Staline — Aperçu historique du bolchevisme (Paris: Plon, 1935).Google Scholar
  34. An interesting book had been published a few years earlier by Souvarine under the signature of Panait Istrati. See P. Istrati, Vers l’autre flamme. La Russie nue (Paris: Ed. Rieder, 1929).Google Scholar
  35. 31.
    Yves Delahaye, review of H. Chambre, Le Marxisme en Union soviétique Idéologie et institutions Leur évolution de 1917 à nos jours (Paris: Seuil, 1955) in Revue française de science politique, vol. VI, no. 1 (January–March 1956) p. 201.Google Scholar
  36. 32.
    Mazon, ‘Slavonic studies in France’, p. 210.Google Scholar
  37. 33.
    Emile Sicard, ‘1. Réflexions sur l’Information scientifique, juridique et sociologique, concernant les pays et les peuples slaves’, Sociologie et Droit Slaves, no. 2 (March–April–May, 1946) p. 102.Google Scholar
  38. 34.
    Ibid., p. 108.Google Scholar
  39. 35.
    Y. Delahaye, review of H. Chambre, pp. 201–2.Google Scholar
  40. 36.
    Basile Kerblay, ‘Soviet studies in Western Europe: France’, Survey, no. 50 (January 1964) p. 98. One of such publications was the Cahiers de l’économie soviétique. Published from mid-1945 until 1949 under the aegis of the Institut d’Etude de l’Economie Soviétique run by Alfred Sauvy, this periodical was unquestionably pro-Soviet. The tone was set by the very first issue in July 1945, which contained articles written by arch-Communist French scholars Pierre George and Jean Bruhat, and also by a Soviet scholar from Moscow. As a matter of fact, Soviet scholars contributed a few articles to this publication. The highly respected Sovietologist Kerblay, who had one article in the April–June 1947 issue (‘Le régime juridique des brevets d’invention en U.R.S.S.’, Cahiers de l’économie soviétique, no. 8 (April–June 1947) pp. 3–10) must look back with some amusement on having been published among such singular company.Google Scholar
  41. 37.
    Richard Szawloski, Soviet Studies, vol. XXI, no. 2 (October 1969) p. 262.Google Scholar
  42. 38.
    M. Lesage, Les régimes politiques de l’U.R. S. S. et de l’Europe de l’Est (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971) p. 7.Google Scholar
  43. 39.
    Georges H. Mond, review of M. Lesage, ibid., in Revue de l’Est, vol. 2, no. 3 (July 1971) p. 183.Google Scholar
  44. 40.
    H. Carrère d’Encausse’s introduction to L. Marcou, L’Union Soviétique, p. 23.Google Scholar
  45. 41.
    Gérard Wild, review of H. Carrère d’Encausse, L’empire éclaté — la révolte des nations en U.R.S.S. (Paris: Flammarion, 1978) in Le Courrier des Pays de l’Est, no. 225 (January 1979) p. 47.Google Scholar
  46. 42.
    See Eisenmann, ‘Slavonic Studies in France’, p. 302.Google Scholar
  47. 43.
    One finds a further illustration of the problem caused by the divorce existing between language studies and social sciences in a short article by N. Davies about the organisation and methods of Polish studies in France. See N. Davies, ‘Study visit in France: a short Report’, International Newsletter — International Committee for Soviet and East European Studies, 15 (July 1982) p. 46.Google Scholar
  48. 44.
    Michel Lesage, ‘Les études soviétiques et est-européennes en France’, Canadian Slavonic Papers, vol. XI, no. 3 (Fall 1969) pp. 295–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 45.
    Bonamour, ‘Soviet and East European Studies in France’, p. 51.Google Scholar
  50. 46.
    Kerblay, ‘Soviet studies in Western Europe: France’, p. 105.Google Scholar
  51. 47.
    Jean Train, ‘L’étude du Russe en France’, Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique, vol. 1, no. 1 (May 1959) p. 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 48.
    Kerblay, ‘Soviet studies in Western Europe: France’, p. 105.Google Scholar
  53. 49.
    The same comment may be made as to the action of the DGRST (Direction générale de la Recherche scientifique et technique). See Bonamour, ‘Soviet and East European Studies in France’, p. 52.Google Scholar
  54. 50.
    Ibid., pp. 51–2.Google Scholar
  55. 51.
    In an interview given in Paris on 22 March 1983, Jean Bonamour, former director of the INES, made it very clear that, due to a chronic lack of financial resources, the INES was then on the brink of disappearance. He also made clear that more financial resources constitute an absolute priority if some efforts towards coordinating and organising the research are to see the light of day and yield results.Google Scholar
  56. 52.
    The IMSECO is a joint unit CNRS/University of Paris IV-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  57. 53.
    H. Carrère d’Encausse did not hesitate to underline the minimal collaboration among French Sovietologists. Interview with H. Carrère d’Encausse in Paris, 5 November 1982.Google Scholar
  58. 54.
    S. Hoffman, W. Leontieff and H. Tajfel, Social Sciences Policy — France — Examiners’ Report, p. 262.Google Scholar
  59. 55.
    Jacques Lautman has recently drawn attention to this danger, when he writes about these ‘few talented authors working in auspicious fields who become prominent, thus running the risk of being swallowed up by success and becoming imperceptibly entangled in the promotion of the product …’. See Jacques Lautman, ‘Les sciences sociales et le C.N.R.S., entre la culture et la demande bureaucratique’, Commentaire, vol. 6, no. 21 (Spring 1983) p. 196.Google Scholar
  60. 56.
    According to another French specialist on Soviet politics, Michel Tatu of Le Monde, it is no secret that Sovietological research in France revolves around a number of ‘small fiefs, small units’. Interview with M. Tatu in Paris, 8 November 1982.Google Scholar
  61. 57.
    Interview in Paris with Jean Bonamour, 22 March 1983 and with Jean-Guy Collignon, 24 March 1983.Google Scholar
  62. 58.
    P. Sorlin, La société soviétique 1917–1964 (Paris: Armand Colin, 1964) p. 5. In this regard one reads with great interest the brief preliminary remarks to a series of articles focusing on the Soviet Union, which appeared in a 1956 issue of Les Cahiers de la République: ‘Suddenly the communist world presents itself as an enigma. We see it as a land of turmoil: what does this turmoil hide? The three articles published here are free of passion. We believe that, in France, serious discussions of these problems have been rare … We also believe that our readers will not regret the absence of claptrap and uncontrolled passion that this subject generally brings about.’ See ‘Le Monde communiste’, Les Cahiers de la République, 4 (December 1956) p. 41.Google Scholar
  63. 59.
    Conseil de direction, Le Monde slave, no. 1 (November 1924) p. 6.Google Scholar
  64. 60.
    As pointed out by J. Lyon, ‘It is nowadays unwise to address Russian issues without taking precautions and without clearly identifying the objective pursued. Apology or indictment are out of place here. We have deliberately attempted to examine Soviet Russia as a fact … the impact and future of which are impossible to assess if one does not examine it coldly as one would in a laboratory experiment aimed at understanding and describing.’ See J. Lyon, La Russie Soviétique (Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1927) p. 1.Google Scholar
  65. 61.
    Emile Sicard, ‘I. Sociologie et Histoire des peuples et des Etats slaves’, Sociologie et Droit Slaves, no. 1 (1947) p. 10.Google Scholar
  66. 62.
    F. Bourricaud, Le bricolage idéologique — Essai sur les intellectuels et les passions démocratiques (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1980) p. 162.Google Scholar
  67. In view of its backwardness on the material, technological and scientific planes when compared to America, many in France saw Marxism and the Socialist utopia in terms of a return, as suggested by M. Crozier, to the ‘avant-garde’. France could regain, as he noted, ‘the advantage on the level that counted most, that of working out the future society’. See Michel Crozier, ‘The Cultural Revolution — Notes on the Changes in the Intellectual Climate of France’, Daedalus, vol. 93, no. 1 (Winter 1964) p. 532.Google Scholar
  68. 63.
    Jean-Marie Domenach, ‘L’intelligentsia française et la perception de l’Est communiste’, Cadmos, 4ème Année, no. 13 (Spring 1981) p. 21. As for the ideological bankruptcy of the French Right, Bourricaud writes: ‘The French Right’s involvement in the ignominious bankruptcy of European fascism caused its ideology to be temporarily deprived of any legitimacy … dismissed because of its complicity, the ideological Right left a vacuum that a new generation of Marxist-Existentialist ideologues could fill without facing competition.’ Ibid., pp. 141–2 and 143.Google Scholar
  69. 64.
    G. Martinet, ‘1956 et le renouvellement de la gauche française’, in P. Kende and K. Pomian (eds), 1956 Varsovie Budapest — La deuxième révolution d’Octobre (Paris: Seuil, 1978) p. 149.Google Scholar
  70. 65.
    Domenach, ‘L’intelligentsia française et la perception de l’Est communiste’, p. 19.Google Scholar
  71. 66.
    M. Poster, Existential Marxism in Postwar France — From Sartre to Althusser (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977) p. 38.Google Scholar
  72. 67.
    C. Lefort, L’Invention démocratique — Les limites de la domination totalitaire (Paris: Fayard, 1981) p. 9.Google Scholar
  73. 68.
    Claude Lefort, ‘Kravchenko et le problème de l’U.R.S.S.’, Les Temps modernes, 29 (February 1948)Google Scholar
  74. reprinted in C. Lefort, Eléments d’une critique de la bureaucratie (Paris: Gallimard, 1979) pp. 117–18.Google Scholar
  75. 69.
    G. Lavau, A quoi sert le parti communiste français? (Paris: Fayard, 1981) p. 369. For a survey of the general policy followed by the PCF towards the Soviet Union until 1980, see chapter IX — ‘L’URSS au-dessus de tout soupçon’.Google Scholar
  76. 70.
    A. Touraine, Un désir d’Histoire (Paris: Stock, 1977) p. 71.Google Scholar
  77. 71.
    Alain Drouard, ‘Réflexions sur une chronologie: Le développement des sciences sociales en France de 1945 à la fin des années soixante’, Revue française de sociologie, vol. XXIII, 1 (January–March 1982) p. 70.Google Scholar
  78. 72.
    C. Lefort, L’Invention démocratique, p. 86.Google Scholar
  79. 73.
    Yves Hardy and Pascal Gabai, ‘La gauche française et les contestataires soviétiques’, Le Monde diplomatique, December 1977, p. 12.Google Scholar
  80. 74.
    This approach was suggested to us by Georges Lavau, a prominent French political scientist, in an interview in Oxford on 26 February 1983. He resorted to Bourdieu’s terminology and thought that ‘during this period, the field of French Sovietology was entirely “parasitized” by the PCF’. On the idea of ‘field’, see Pierre Bourdieu, ‘Le champ scientifique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, no. 2–3 (June 1976) pp. 89–104 andGoogle Scholar
  81. ‘La représentation politique — Eléments pour une théorie du champ politique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, no. 36–7 (February–March 1981) pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  82. 75.
    Raymond Aron, ‘Fascinés par l’Union Soviétique’, La Nef, vol. 13, no. 12 (March 1956) p. 214.Google Scholar
  83. 76.
    Kerblay, ‘Soviet studies in Western Europe: France’, p. 103.Google Scholar
  84. 77.
    A. Besançon, Présent soviétique et passé russe (Paris: Librairie Générale Française, 1980) p. 10.Google Scholar
  85. 78.
    ‘Memento de la “guerre froide” ‘, Bulletin d’études et d’informations politiques internationales, 16–30 November 1951, p. 13.Google Scholar
  86. 79.
    Kerblay, ‘Soviet studies in Western Europe: France’, p. 103.Google Scholar
  87. 80.
    M. Winock, ‘La gauche non communiste en France: la coupure de 1956’, in P. Kende and K. Pomian(eds), 7956 Varsovie-Budapest — La deuxième révolution d’Octobre, p. 145.Google Scholar
  88. 81.
    Bourricaud, Le bricolage idéologique, p. 178.Google Scholar
  89. 82.
    Martinet, ‘1956 et le renouvellement de la gauche française’, pp. 150–1.Google Scholar
  90. 83.
    Christian Descamps, ‘Claude Lefort le peuple et le pouvoir’ (interview with C. Lefort), Le Monde Dimanche (7 November 1982) p. IX.Google Scholar
  91. 84.
    For a brief explanation of this French phenomenon, see Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, ‘Paris-Moscou L’U.R.S.S. au purgatoire?’, Le Débat, no. 36 (September 1985) pp. 166–7.Google Scholar
  92. 85.
    In the 1920s books written by exiled Russian socialists and bearing upon the Cheka and the existence of camps were translated and published in France. On this general question, see Jean Rabaut, ‘Le goulag et la France’, Le Monde Dimanche (17 October 1982) pp. X–XI. For the sociologist Raymond Boudon, apart from the ideological aspects, the surprisingly late discovery of the Gulag by the French intelligentsia has something to do with the French literary spirit, seen as ‘the main source of the relative indifference of French intellectuals to reality …’.Google Scholar
  93. See R. Boudon, ‘L’intellectuel et ses publics: les singularités françaises’, in J.-D. Reynaud and Y. Grafmeyer (eds), Français, qui êtes-vous? — des essais et des chiffres (Paris: La Documentation française, 1981) p. 479.Google Scholar
  94. 86.
    See C. Jelen, L’aveuglement — les socialistes et la naissance du mythe soviétique (Paris: Flammarion, 1984)Google Scholar
  95. and J. Sapir, Pays de l’Est vers la crise généralisée? (Lyon: Fédérop, 1980) p. 10.Google Scholar
  96. 87.
    Pierre Hassner, ‘Western European Perceptions of the Soviet Union’, Daedalus, vol. 108, no. 1 (Winter 1979) p. 130.Google Scholar
  97. 88.
    Interview with Michel Heller in Paris, 5 November 1982.Google Scholar
  98. 89.
    Sorlin, La société soviétique 1917–1964, p. 5.Google Scholar
  99. 90.
    Roger Kanet, review of H. Carrère d’Encausse, Le pouvoir confisqué — gouvernants et gouvernés en U.R.S.S. (Paris: Flammarion, 1980) in Slavic Review, vol. 40, no. 2 (Summer 1981) p. 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 91.
    Rudolf L. Tökés, ‘Comparative Communism: The Elusive Target’, Studies in Comparative Communism, vol. VIII, no. 3 (Autumn 1975) p. 222.Google Scholar
  101. 92.
    Pierre Favre, ‘La science politique en France depuis 1945’, International Political Science Review, vol. 2, no. 1 (1981) pp. 111–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 93.
    Jean Leca, ‘La science politique dans le champ intellectuel français’, Revue française de science politique, vol. 32, no. 4–5 (August–October 1982) pp. 658–9.Google Scholar
  103. 94.
    J. Viet, Les sciences de l’homme en France — tendances et organisation de la recherche (Paris: Mouton, 1966) p. 50.Google Scholar
  104. 95.
    G. Burdeau, Méthode de la science politique (Paris: Dalloz, 1959) p. 43.Google Scholar
  105. 96.
    Leca, ‘La science politique dans le champ intellectuel français’, p. 664.Google Scholar
  106. 97.
    It is worth noting that numerous professors of constitutional law nowadays consider political science as annexed to their own speciality. They dispute political science’s autonomy. In their opinion, the political science one comes across is not really serious, since it has lost sight of the main problem, namely the study of political institutions. See Pierre Favre, ‘Regards sur la science politique française’, paper delivered to the Association française de science politique, 19 June 1981.Google Scholar
  107. 98.
    C. Morrisson has written about the difficulty facing many researchers in social sciences, that is, to get acquainted with a methodology different from the one germane to their original discipline (a difficulty felt especially during the period 1950–68). The gradual movement of researchers towards the social sciences has not come about without serious difficulties. Thus, as noted by Morrisson, ‘the methodology, the role of experimentation, the use of mathematics … are not the same in social sciences as in the fields of literature, philosophy or history. Hence, the adaptation of the researcher to the methodology of social sciences has been impeded by his initial training’. See Christian Morrisson, ‘Les moyens des sciences sociales en France’, Revue Economique, vol. XXVI, no. 6 (1975) p. 1010.Google Scholar
  108. 99.
    Alfred Grosser, ‘I. Recherche et enseignement’, Tendances (December 1960) p. 473. (my emphasis)Google Scholar
  109. 100.
    Jean-Guy Collignon, ‘De l’isolationnisme au comparatisme — méthodes et approches anglo-saxonnes pour l’analyse du système politique soviétique’, Revue française de science politique, vol. 26, no. 3 (June 1976) pp. 445–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 101.
    Daniel Tarschys, ‘The Soviet political system: Three models’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 5, no. 3 (September 1977) pp. 287– 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 102.
    Kerblay, ‘Soviet studies in Western Europe: France’, p. 105.Google Scholar
  112. 103.
    H. Carrère d’Encausse’s introduction to L. Marcou, L’Union Soviétique, p. 27.Google Scholar
  113. 104.
    R. Charvin, Les Etats socialistes européens — Institutions et vie politique (Toulouse: Dalloz, 1975) pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  114. 105.
    Interview with H. Carrère d’Encausse in Paris, 5 November 1982.Google Scholar
  115. 106.
    Kanet, review of H. Carrère d’Encausse, p. 294. More strictly, Kanet might have spoken of English-language writing on the Soviet Union, for British and Australian scholars — as well as Americans — are often cited in her work.Google Scholar
  116. 107.
    Favre, ‘La science politique en France depuis 1945’, p. 117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert Desjardins 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Desjardins

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations