Images of workers were ubiquitous in Soviet visual culture. Other than in capitalist countries, the Soviet visual regime was inextricably linked to the faces of working people; workers were elevated to the ‘status of icons’ in newspapers, journals and movies alike. According to Soviet ideology, every worker contributed to socialism, which is why everyone was worthy of portrayal. The article traces the discussion among professionals and readers in Soviet journals about how to portray working people both in their professions and their everyday lives. In the 1960s, Soviet photographers actively propagated a shift from portraying the profession to portraying the individual. A close reading of photographs published mostly in Sovetskoe foto details how Soviet photo-graphers aimed at capturing individuality in the first place, how photography helped establish typical and un-typical notions of individuality and work, and to which extent the a-typical became the new typical.
Using various case studies – from Oleg Kalugin to Grigorii Sevostianov and Nikolai Sivachev in Russia, and Askold Shlepakov in Ukraine, this article examines different instrumental functions of the KGB people among Soviet Americanists, specialists in the US history, politics, literature and films. It focuses on the KGB influences in the field of American studies in the Soviet Union since the beginning of Soviet-us academic exchanges programs in 1958 till the beginning of perestroika. This article is a part of the larger project about cultural and social history of Soviet Americanists during the Cold War.
Constructed in the 1960s in a wooded area 30 kilometers outside Novosibirsk, Akademgorodok was created as a landmark of Soviet science and industry. The extensive and sparsely populated area in Siberia contained academic institutions and research-and-development facilities that worked on technologies for both civilian and military purposes. The present research addresses the period when Akademgorodok lost its status as a major hub. This study focuses on the cultural and professional transitions of the former Soviet scientists seeking to adapt to a new political, economic, and cultural context.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was reduced from the role of a global hegemon to that of a regional hegemon. As the regional hegemon, Russia was responsible for creating a regional order that was nested within the global order. However, since the Soviet Union had collapsed, it could not be assumed that Russia would create a regional order that was compatible with the global order. Would Russia create a regional order that was incompatible with the global order, and further, would Russia be a dissatisfied state that would challenge US hegemony? Using network analysis, I discover that Russia created a regional order that was compatible with the global order. In other words, Russia did not directly challenge the global order. More specifically, Russia accepted the global order that existed at the end of the Cold War. Providing that the global order remained static, Russia would not challenge that order. However, US actions following the collapse of the Soviet Union such as the expansion of nato and the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty are interpreted by Russia as a dynamic change in the global order. The Ukrainian crisis further exacerbated the wedge that had developed between the United States and Russia. It has further isolated Russia, destroyed the regional order nested within the global order, and ensured that Russia fully became a dissatisfied state looking to challenge US hegemony. Russia will now turn to China to try to challenge US hegemony.