The Space Between:
Alexei Yurchak examines how ordinary Russians lived the end of socialism

The popular perception that the Soviet Union’s rapid disintegration was the outcome of a struggle between a group of determined dissidents and an all-powerful state is an idea Alexei Yurchak finds deficient.

AVIA in concert

“I’m really against the binary view,” says Yurchak, an assistant professor of anthropology. “The distinction between the bureaucratic regime and the dissidents leaves out the majority, which lived in a different way and was quite ironic about both of those positions.”

Yurchak, a native of St. Petersburg, examines the transformations in Soviet society from the 1960s through the mid-1980s in his forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Cynical Reason of Late Socialism. In his research, Yurchak uses a combination of contemporary interviews and material such as diaries and personal letters written by Russians during the period before 1985, the point when change began overtaking the system.

“I’m primarily interested in a few questions,” says Yurchak, currently a Townsend Center Fellow. “The people who lived in the Soviet Union experienced it as something that would last forever. How come no one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union? What was it about that system and that life that made the prospect of a collapse unmentionable?”

For most people, Yurchak says, the Soviet system – despite its flaws – offered a set of collective values. “There were many moral and ethical aspects to socialism,” he observes. “Even though those values may have been betrayed by the state, they were still very important to people themselves in their lives.”

At the same time, the state could still foster some of those values in ways that led to instances of cooperation that are often overlooked. Yurchak cites the Soviet Union’s rock music scene as an example. While rock musicians broke some rules – such as listening to and trading recordings of Western rock – the state, through organizations such as the Young Communist League, also tolerated and gave space to them for their performances.

Alexei Yurchak in St. Petersburg

Yurchak speaks from experience. After finishing his studies in physics and working as a scientist, he became a manager of the rock band AVIA in the 1980s. A theatrical troupe that Yurchak describes as a stylistic fusion of the 1920s avant-garde and postmodern sensibilities, AVIA was composed of some seven musicians and thirteen performers.

The group ridiculed the pronouncements of the state, but in a subtle manner, Yurchak says. “They were using a lot of symbolism, from red flags to slogans to visual images, but all of them were slightly overdrawn,” he explains. “It was satire, but not necessarily satire at the expense of the state. It was aimed at the meaninglessness of slogans and at the same time there was a lot of warmth towards those values. If you spoke to them, they were also very critical of the West.”

According to Yurchak, this was a common position for many Russians. Until the mid-1980s, they viewed the state as a hegemon they might joke about, but couldn’t imagine ever ending.

“By the 1970s, the form of socialism was really frozen,” Yurchak says. “You had no way to change it: You had to constantly hear speeches and go to meetings. When people heard the question ‘Who’s in favor?’ at a meeting, they automatically raised their hands without thinking. At the same time, the meaning slid from under the form.”

While many think that economic failure ended the Soviet system, Yurchak says that’s not the case. Instead, the change was sparked by a shift in public dialogue beginning with Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika reforms in 1985.

“Gorbachev allowed people to question the ‘problems’ of socialism,” Yurchak says. “Unexpectedly, opening up that discussion displaced the voice of the party. It unsettled the whole machinery of the state, which was not seen as unchangeable anymore. It was really a rupture.”

From that point, the collapse was swift and devastating.

The cover of AVIA’s second album, Hooray!

“There was a reintroduction of discussion about public rituals that were not previously questioned, just expected as part of life,” Yurchak says. “Public life shifted from the official discourse to one that really analyzed how the system worked. The state was completely discredited.”

Yurchak says that the collapse of the Soviet Union should not give fuel to the idea that “our system won. We were right and they were wrong.” Instead, he asserts, it provides some lessons on how a hegemonic state can fail.

“It shows that ideologies or the way people read ideologies can change, and that change can be undetectable,” Yurchak observes. “The Soviet system is really an example of how a successful state can prepare its own demise in an invisible way. It can be successful but not quite what it seems. What’s really happening doesn’t become visible until after the fact.”

-- Doug Merlino