Before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent archival revolution; Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s famous “literary investigation†The Gulag Archipelago was the most authoritative overview of the Stalinist system of camps. But modern research is developing a much more thorough and nuanced understanding of the Gulag. There is a greater awareness of the wide variety of camps; many not isolated in far-off Siberia; prisoners often intermingled with local populations. The forced labor system was not completely distinct from the “free†labor of ordinary Soviet citizens; as convicts and non-prisoners often worked side-by-side. Nor was the Gulag unique when viewed in a global historical context. Still; the scale and scope of the Soviet Gulag was unprecedented. Intrinsic to Stalinist modernization; the Gulag was tasked with the construction of massive public works; scientific and engineering projects; and such mundane work as road repairs. Along with the collectivization of agriculture; the Soviet economy (including its military exertions in World War II) was in large part dependent on compulsory labor. The camp system took on an outsized economic significance; and the vast numbers of people taken in by zealous secret police were meant to fulfill material; not just political; goals. While the Soviet system lacked the explicitly dedicated extermination camps of its Nazi counterpart; it did systematically extract work from inmates to the verge of death then cynically “released†them to reduce officially reported mortality rates. In an original turn; the book offers a detailed consideration of the Gulag in the context of the similar camps and systems of internment. Chapters are devoted to the juxtaposition of nineteenth-century British concentration camps in Africa and India; the Tsarist-era system of exile in Siberia; Chinese and North Korean reeducation camps; the post-Soviet penal system in the Russian Federation; and of course the infamous camp system of Nazi Germany. This not only reveals the close relatives; antecedents; and descendants of the Soviet Gulag—it shines a light on a frighteningly widespread feature of late modernity. Overall; The Soviet Gulag offers fascinating new interpretations of the interrelationship and importance of the Gulag to the larger Soviet political and economic system; and how they were in fact parts of the same entity.
#1927503 in Books Duke University Press Books 2006-08-30 2006-08-30Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x .60 x 6.00l; .75 #File Name: 0822338955240 pages
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. How Happy is the Person Who Says I am a TurkBy Etienne RPThere is one country in Europe where people feel nostalgic for the 1930s; and where they almost unanimously cherish the memory of a one-party state which multiplied statues of its great leader on every street corner. The country is Turkey and the golden age that Turks remember with nostalgia is the first two decades of the republic founded in 1923 by Mustapha Kemal; the father of all Turks. The climax of this era of bliss and hope occurred with the tenth anniversary celebrations of the declaration of the Turkish Republic; when Atatürk famously declared: "How happy is the person who says I am a Turk!"Nostalgia is a thoroughly modern sentiment. Or maybe a postmodern one: it is fair to say that modernity ended with the end of hope for tomorrow. Since then; people have looked for their utopias in the past rather than in the future. As Esra Özyürek notes; quoting another author; the twentieth century began with a futuristic utopia and ended with nostalgia. A belief in the future is now only a relic of the past. What people look for in the past is the kind of pride and hope in the future that seems to have disappeared from our present.By locating their modernity in the past; rather than in the present or future; and by cultivating a vivid memory of the 1930s as a modern past utopia in which the citizens united around their state; many Turks with a nationalist-secular worldview tend to reject the visions; revisions and divisions that characterize the present situation. They are discontent with the new definition of modernity that the European Union imposes on Turkey; becoming resistant to criticisms of the way Turkey has handled the Kurdish issue and human rights violations. They firmly oppose the rise of political Islam and what they perceive as attacks to the foundations of the secular state.For nostalgic Republicans; the end of the single-party regime and the transition to democracy formed the starting point of selfishness and factionalism in Turkey. They agree that the golden age came to an end with the first fair general elections of 1950; when the Democrat Party replaced the Republican People's Party. Everything apparently got worse afterwards. Suddenly; there was more than one vision for the future of the country; and citizens were divided along the lines of gender; class; ethnicity; and religion. People started putting their private interest above the common good embodied by the state.Of course; paradise is always and forever lost; and nobody in Turkey really wants to turn back the clock backward to the 1930s. The militaristic and patriarchal feelings associated with the early Republican era no longer match the contemporary ideals of European modernism; which promotes voluntarism; spontaneity; and free will in state-citizen relations. The nationalist march songs with lyrics glorifying the construction of railroad tracks and the devotion to the leader are revisited today with a new aesthetic of postmodern kitsch and disco rhythm. Nostalgia is also used to silence the opposition; as when the remix of nationalist songs blasted by discotheques compete with the calls to prayer of the muezzin.In Nostalgia for the Modern; Esra Özyürek explores how nostalgia for the single-party era is indicative of a new kind of relationship citizens have established with the founding principles of the Turkish Republic; one that manifests itself in affective; domestic; and otherwise private realms generally considered outside the traditional field of politics. She takes as the sites of her ethnography the seventy-fifth anniversary Republic Day celebrations arranged by civil society organizations; the popular life histories of first-generation Republicans who transformed their lives as a result of the Kemalist reforms; the commercial pictures of Atatürk that privatize and commodify a state icon; the pop music albums that remixed the tenth-anniversary march originally made in 1933; and museum exhibits about the family lives of citizens that articulate metaphors of national intimacy.Özyürek sees a parallel between the neoliberal policies of market reforms and structural adjustment and what she describes as the privatization of state ideology. Both are characterized by a symbolism of privatization; market choice; and voluntarism that contrasts with the statist; nationalist and authoritarian ideology of Kemalism in the former period. With neo-Kemalism; a secular state ideology; politics; and imaginary finds a new life and legitimacy in the private realms of the market; the home; civil society; life history; and emotional attachment; transforming the intimate sphere along the way.This shift of secular ideology from the public to the private; which (just like neoliberal economic reforms) involves processes of destatization and restatization; occurred just at the same time as; and in reaction to; the growing importance in the public sphere of religious beliefs and practices that were once confined in the private realm. Secularism went private just when Islam went public; as both had to face the shift produced by market reforms and liberalization. This exploration of cultural imaginaries associated with the neoliberal ideology opens up new possibilities for political anthropology: according to the author; "anthropologists are uniquely equipped to understand the newly hegemonic culture of neoliberalism in the fields of economy; society and politics."There is also an autobiographical aspect to this ethnography. For Esra Özyürek; fieldwork was intimately linked to family work. As she confesses; "I am the granddaughter of a parliamentarian of the single-party regime and the daughter of two staunch Kemalist and social democrat activists affiliated with the Republican People's Party." Raised as an orthodox Kemalist; her mother is a firm believer in Westernization; secularism; and Turkish nationalism. She doesn't hesitate to chastise her daughter for her sympathy with the cause of veiled university students. Her father is also a stalwart Republican who was elected to Parliament in the course of her research. Analyzing further her motivations for undertaking this project; the author notes that "this study became a tool for me to negotiate daughter-parent relations and establish myself as an adult in some ways." Coming of age as an anthropologist also involves dealing with the father-figure of Atatürk; whose towering presence makes itself felt in every chapters of the book.Written as a scholarly essay with a rich theoretical apparatus; Nostalgia for the Modern can also be read as a very personal rendition of the author's effort to come to terms with her Turkish identity.
