The Man Question. Loves and Lives
in Late 20th Century Russia
Anna
Rotkirch:
Lecturer in Women's Studies
Christina Institute - Helsinki – Finland
anna.rotkirch(AT)helsinki.fi
Order the book here:
Anna
Rotkirch: The Man Question. Loves and Lives in Late 20th Century Russia
Introduction
"Again
your presentation started by stating what we did not have: there was no
sexual revolution, there was no public discourse on sex, I'm sorry but
it already makes me sick". Petersburg
sociologist Elena Zdravomyslova.
“Sex...what’s
that? What we were always doing or something new?”
Comedian Mikhail Zhvanetskii, quoted in Engelstein (1992b, 786).
The velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe in the 1980s and 1990s are said
to be the first in history that were not guided by any utopian visions
of a better, more equal future. On the rhetorical level, post-socialist
Russia wanted to live ‘normally’, ‘like everybody else’ (in the
West). Certainly, the neo-liberal theories formally guiding the Eastern
European transitional economies were part of a particular ideology,
including an ideology of human beings, human freedom and family
relations. But these ideologies tend to be propagated as the absence of
ideologies or state interference. Similarly, the return to intrinsically
‘Russian’ traditions eclectically favoured by communist and
national-chauvinist groups in the 1990s was mainly defined in opposition
to the too emancipated Soviet or too liberated Western woman. Questions
of women’s and sexual liberation had been on the top agenda of the
Russian intelligentsia from the early 19th century until the 1920s. Now,
they were assigned a subordinated role in the state project of
post-Soviet Russia.
The absence of overarching, declared emancipatory projects has not
prevented, but served and facilitated, re-arrangements of gender
relations in Russian society. It has concealed, but not prevented
perceptions of gender and sexuality from being at the core of numerous
political, professional and personal conflicts. This time the most
drastic changes have concerned men and masculinities. As the ‘woman
question’ defined the end of the 19th century, what could be called
the ‘man question’ was a driving force in the social and cultural
dynamics of late 20th century Russia.
This book is about sexual and family life in Soviet and
post-socialist Russia. It ranges from post-war Soviet society through
the so-called era of stagnation in the 1970s (which will emerge as just
the opposite in sexual behaviour) and the era of the public sexual
revolution in the 1980s-1990s. It is a contribution to the social
history of the vanishing world of real socialism and an inquiry into the
dynamics of gender and family relations in Russia today. I will not
traced the debates about Russian masculinity discursively, neither can I
predict how the ‘man question’ will be answered. Instead, I want to
detect the everyday practices and gendered constellations from which it
has arised.
The time is gone when revealing the injustices and complications
of Soviet everyday life had an informational and shock value of its own.
I do not want to write about what the Russians ‘lacked’ (although,
as the above quoted frustration from a close Russian colleague shows,
the risk is constantly present). Through the life stories and insights
of autobiographies written by so-called ordinary people, I want to
discuss what there was. The sphere of everyday sexual practices is taken
as a case for analysing the patterns of social development in late
Soviet and new Russian society. It is also a case for extending our
theoretical understanding of the relationships between human bodies,
practices, and discourses. The Soviet experience offers us one of the
best arguments for not reducing everything to linguistic practices. Were
that the case, the Russians would indeed have been doing “something
new”, as Mikhail Zhvanetskii puts it in the quote above, and very
exotic, in bed.
Framing
questions: gender traditionalism and the semi-public sphere
From the mid-1930s, the Soviet regime banned most kinds of discourses on
sexuality - whether educational, entertaining, pornographic or
philosophical. Notably, the Soviet Union had no ‘sexual revolution’
in the 1960s similar to that in the West. In the 1960s and 1970s, there
were only minor changes in the sexual policy and ideology of the
communist regime. This constellation served as my point of departure:
What happens in everyday life when a certain sphere of life - sexuality
- is practically banned from public discourse?
I have dealt with this initial framing question in two ways: by
asking how sexual behaviour and morality changed compared with official
ideological norms and how the structure of sexual cultures was affected
by the prohibition of public debate and thus any negotiated, general
consensus.
Related as they are, these questions led me in diverging
directions. The question about behaviour and morality led me straight
into the ‘emotional economy’ (Näre 1995) of the Soviet Russian
families and everyday settings. It guided me to the relations between
two sexes and three generations, and between declared ideals and a more
pragmatic morality. I started with the common assumption that despite
the seemingly egalitarian rhetoric of the Soviet state, everyday gender
relations were more traditional (read: pre-modern) in Soviet Russia than
in contemporary Western societies. This thesis of gender traditionalism
of course included sexual relations as well. As I became more and more
immersed in the autobiographies, which constitute my primary material,
the claim of traditionalism seemed increasingly puzzling. Certainly, the
Russians sometimes followed the changes in the sexual behaviour of the
Finns with a neat 15-20 years of time lag. But in some respects the
Soviet experience led to more radical (in the sense of anti-traditional)
behaviour. For instance, a grandmother could advise her daughter to get
a divorce and become a single mother.
This radical side of Soviet family life evidently had to do with
the broader context of social and economic policies. Relationships
between men and women were built on an economically different basis in
state socialism than in capitalism. Social hardships - from wars and
famine to the notorious lack of living space - put additional pressures
on marriages. As a consequence, the Soviet heterosexual couple was in
several ways more fragile than in prosperous and capitalist economies.
Although in line with Friedrich Engels’ original prediction about
families under socialism, this development was an unintended and much
belated consequence of Soviet state policies. Everyday sexuality thus
had to be understood against the background of the Soviet family with
its weak or absent male breadwinner, and its basic structure of what I
call extended motherhood. I have named the social and mental
consequences arising from this situation the ‘man question’.
The expression was first coined by Arja Rosenholm (1999), who
shows how the Russian woman question in the 1860s was formulated by men
and in many ways articulated male, not female, self reflection.
Obviously, I talk about the man question in a different historical
context. The man question at the end of the 20th century is often put by
Russian women, but also explicitly by the men themselves. Just as the
Russian woman question was not only discussed in Russia, the man
question is not limited to the socialist or post-socialist space. In
many ways, the Soviet experiences of the 1960s and 1970s resembled the
uncertainties and parental anxieties, connected with women’s economic
independence and full-time employment, that the Western countries have
fully faced since the 1990s. Systematic comparisons between the gender
questions of the 19th and the 20th century, or between their formulation
in Russia and outside it, lie, however, outside the scope of this work.
By talking about the man question I also wanted to pay explicit
attention to the group that, even if representing the ‘first sex’,
has been ascribed the role of the ‘second gender’. That men should
be explicitly included in gender research is a realization that has
turned into practice only during the 1990s in international academic
research.
The same paradox posed itself when I looked at what the authors
from Leningrad/St Petersburg included in their accounts of sexuality,
or, how the domains of the sexual and of love were drawn. Not only did
family and sexual culture seem to be formed by the explicit sexual and
reproductive policies of the Soviet regime - the living conditions, the
censorship and puritanism, the lack of adequate means of birth control,
and the authoritarian and pro-natalist approach to parenthood in general
and motherhood in particular. The emotional economy of everyday Russian
life also denied sexuality a privileged and unique position. As Svetlana
Boym (1993, 157) mentions, neither in tsarist nor Soviet Russia was
sexuality thought of as a separate life sphere, “conceived separately
from moral, emotional, cultural, and historical elements”. In much of
the autobiographical material used in this study, especially in that
written by women, other forms of love - between parents and children, or
between friends - were described as equally, if differently, important.
Again, I was forced to look at my own culture and its exclusive focus on
the sexual Couple from the outside. But were the Russian conceptions of
love and intimacy more ‘traditional’ than those of my culture - or
less?
My second framing question, the one about the structure of sexual
cultures, did not concern gender as much as generational and class
dynamics. Several scholars have argued that the late 1970s and early
1980s were a watershed time in Soviet private, family and intimate life.
This has been connected with a predominantly theoretical discussion
about the ‘second society’ during state socialism (Hankiss 1988) or
what has been referred to as the semi-public sphere (Zdravomyslova
1997). I wanted to test that concept with regards to sexuality and on a
solid empirical base. Sexual cultures seemed a promising way of
approaching semi-public lifestyles and discussing their relationship
with generations and the dominant culture. I was also interested in what
this could tell us about the relationship between discourse, or
articulating sexual issues publicly, and practices.
I found that, yes, the biggest changes in sexual behaviour
occurred in the late 1970s. During that period, conventionally labelled
one of stagnation, various and sharply contrasting sexual ways of life
established themselves in Soviet society. With the advent of perestroika
in the mid-1980s, and especially after the economic reforms of 1991, the
already existing subcultures provided the basis for the dominant culture
of masculinity, as well as for more marginal cultures challenging them.
But this process did not appear as neat as I had expected it to be. The
Soviet semi-public sphere did not simply turn into the new public sphere
of contemporary Russia. In many respects, the characteristics of the
Soviet ‘semi-public’ domain, with its blurred distinctions between
private and public, remained. They were especially dominating the lives
of young Russians.
Disciplinary
affinities
This study belongs to the fields of sociology, social history and social
policy, inquiring as it does into the intended and unintended
consequences of Soviet reproductive and family policy. It also situates
itself in the fields of feminist and gender studies and - to a lesser
degree - sexual research. Needless to say, it belongs to Soviet and
Russian studies, as well as autobiographical studies. However, the 1990s
have witnessed an increasing malaise with the conventional disciplinary
and thematical borders of social sciences. Anthony Giddens’ claim that
history, sociology and geography are actually aspects of the same
megadiscipline is true for many European sociologists of the younger
generation, including myself. I would therefore as well place my work in
the field - or metafield - of comparative social theory. In the spirit
of reflexive social science and the extended case method, my interest is
in documenting what is unique and local in order to improve our
knowledge of the general.
In the West, 20th century culture has put intense - and
ceaselessly intensifying, it would seem - emphasis on sexuality. Partly
this stems from such ideological currents as psychoanalysis and
feminism, partly from the commercialisation and mediatisation of Western
societies. Soviet Russia, by contrast, was a non-Freudian, non-feminist
as well as anti-commercial culture. Psychoanalysis was repressed and
access to any kind of sexually explicit material forbidden or strictly
limited. Instead, Russian and Soviet culture has known several
intellectual traditions, where sexuality or desire is not seen as the
defining and decisive feature of human life.
Today, some Western scholars turn to the Russian experiences for
alternative views of being human, of sexuality, the body, and
subjectivity. Social scientists have looked for possible solutions to
the Western (especially US) impasse arising from rigid identity politics
(Tuller 1996; Rivkin-Fish 1997; Essig 1999). In the social sciences, the
works of major Soviet-era scholars are gradually being translated and
integrated into our intellectual heritage.
At the same time, Western notions of personhood and sexuality were
being rapidly exported to Russia. The Western, bourgeois capitalist view
of sexuality as a separate, and privileged, life sphere is now spreading
in the Russian middle and upper classes. One genre in my material are
stories of identity quests - the search for a fitting sexual and/or
psychological identity. Part of them - although a minority - were
written in the emancipatory rhetoric familiar from Western women’s and
gay movements. This is similar to the way in which Russian research on
gender and sexuality, when it was revived in the 1980s and 1990s,
appropriated the latest Western academic concepts - beginning with the
introduction of the new Russian word gender. As gender studies became
institutionalised in the major Russian cities during the 1990s, the
anthologies that appeared were almost always devoted to a presentation
and rendering of international feminist theory (only during 1998 I
counted almost ten such small sborniki).
This fascinating, on-going and two-way exchange of ideas would
certainly deserve a separate study. In this research, the history of
ideas has a subordinated status and is only present in two aspects. On
the one hand, it is an ingredient in analysing the autobiographical
materials: I pay attention to the categories through which ordinary
people in St Petersburg wrote about sexuality in 1996. On the other
hand, and more importantly, the Russian views of human development have
shaped my theoretical quests. Since the late 1980s, I have followed and
benefited from the discussions in the fields of philosophical and
psychological Russian activity theory (Rotkirch 1996a and 1996b). In
this work, I will refer to the theories of Soviet developmental
psychology and activity theory, mainly the schools of psychologist Lev
Vygotsky and activity theorist Piotr Shchedrovitsky. My dream and
ambition is for a real theoretical dialogue between the best of the
Soviet / Russian traditions and the Western-dominated academic world.
Gender and sexuality has been the focus of some scholarly
attention in the fields of mass media, political rhetoric and popular
culture (Gessen 1995; Kon 1996; Barker 1999). Still, Russian sexuality
has rarely been analysed as part of the everyday and family life.
Svetlana Boym occasionally touches the subject in her “Common
Places” (1994). Laurie Essig (1999) partly documents the everyday of
those who in Russia are called “unordinary” and for whom Essig uses
the word “queer”. I will, by contrast, concern myself with
“ordinary” love stories. We still lack any comprehensive
sociological work about everyday family and love life during late
socialism. Scholars have generally paid attention to changes in the
public sphere, and have focused almost exclusively on Russian women.
This work looks at the loves and lives of both men and women.
The Soviet 1970s, usually called the “era of stagnation”,
actually was a time of intense fermentation. This has been the focus of
an increasing number of publications, mainly by Russian sociologists
(s.g. Shlapentokh 1989; Ionin 1997). In my earlier work, I have
discussed this dynamics from the point of view of case studies of Soviet
psychology and philosophy (Rotkirch 1993; Roos & Rotkirch 1999).
This claim has not, to my knowledge, been made on the basis of a large
empirical material. And still, one of the annoying truisms of Soviet
reality remains its homogenisation, the image of identical homo
sovietici forming grey masses in grey cities. For instance, Claus Offe
refers to (1996) the “forcibly homogenised societies of state
socialism”. While this was true for the structure of the public
sphere, it does not apply to the whole of socialist society.
I align myself with the sociological and historical schools that
have described the rich fibres of the semi-official and private spheres
in Soviet society. If nothing else, the political vicissitudes
during Boris Yeltsin’s last year of presidency should convince
everyone that in order to understand the problematic structures of
public and political life in contemporary Russia, it is important to
understand what happens in the circles of family and friends.
Outline
of the work
The first two chapters present the method and material guiding this
work. Chapter 1 discusses the extended case method in relation to Russia
and defines the subjects of research as everyday sexuality and family
life. Chapter 2 presents the autobiographies from St Petersburg about
love and sexuality that constitute my primary material. It then
introduces the three modes of experience that together form the triad of
experience, an analytical tool that I use in my readings of the
autobiographies.
Part I consists of chapters 3-5 and gives a general overview of
the course of love in the Soviet Russian family. Chapter 3 describes the
conventions and practices of romantic courtship and dating. Chapter 4
continues with marriage, childbearing, divorces and second chances.
Chapter 5 focuses on the role of women in the Russian family by drawing
comparisons with Western theories about motherhood and women’s
discontent in the family. The dominant Russian family pattern emerging
from this analysis is called extended mothering. The chapter then uses
this pattern to revise and extend the thesis of Soviet gender
traditionalism.
Part II is an inventory of milieu and gender differences. In
chapter 6, I analyse the transmissions of sexual knowledge in three
generations. I argue that the ‘sexual revolution’ in Russia happened
in two distinct stages. The by now well-known revolution in the public
sphere of the 1980s and 1990s was preceded by the behavioural revolution
of late Soviet society in the 1970s. A second special feature of Soviet
sexual culture was how it, from the 1960s and onwards, became tied to
subcultures rather than generations. Chapter 7 and 8 give examples of
such subcultures: how the Soviet middle class dealt with double
morality, and how promiscuity and social mobility interacted in the
lives of male workers. Chapter 9 summarizes the practical and
theoretical consequences of the behavioural sexual revolution, here
based on the example of same-sex loves.
Part III describes the lives in the Wild East of the 1990s.
Chapter 10 argues that the monetarisation of family life has affected
men at least as drastically as women. As the typical Soviet life course
fell apart, the borders of the private and the public became
increasingly blurred. The New Russian emerged from what I call the
process of anxious masculinization. Chapter 11 describes how
naturalization of sexuality served two strategies, that of sexual
enlightenment and that of anxious masculinization. It also shows how the
emergence of sex as a separate life sphere was resisted in a critique of
commercialised and compartmentalised human relations.
The list
of the autobiographies collected in St Petersburg in 1996 with their
numbers, the pseudonyms used, and the main characteristics of the
writers, is at the end of the book. I have also translated the
announcement text used in the competition of autobiographies.
Ethical
questions
When a Western - in this case, a Finnish - researcher studies
Soviet/Russian people's lives, the perspective is of course that of an
outsider. It is also the view of a privileged outsider. The border
between Finland and Russian Karelia presented one of the biggest gaps in
living standards on the planet, exceeding, for instance, the differences
between Mexico and the United States. Finnish and other Western
researchers live in a comparably stable social situation, with better
salaries and academic facilities than the scholars of the former Eastern
bloc. The Soviet experience and post-socialist experiments have lead to
shattered lives, pain and humiliation for many Russians, whereas they
represent an intellectual adventure for interested Westerners,
containing both the nostalgically familiar and the radically new, both
their 1950s and 2010s.
The economic power dimension is accompanied by the power relations
proper to the academic field itself. Russian sociologists, whose general
intellectual level is certainly not lower than that of scholars in the
West, had to enter the international academic discourse on terms
established by others.
However much I wish to make Russian theoretical achievements
‘speak back’, my own academic training and the basic concepts of
research belong to a basically Anglo- and francophone academic
discourse. And I write in English, the one and only international
academic language at the moment - not Swedish, which is my mother
tongue, or Finnish, the majority language of my country, or Russian, the
language of my informants and also of some of my most important
intellectual insights.
The power to decide which research questions are relevant has been
an acute - if often acknowledged - problem in the field of Russian
gender studies. In 1997, I checked a research data bank with
presentations of mainly Northern American scholars doing Russian
studies. The section of history and social sciences had over 300 names,
and I was amazed to realise that almost one fifth of them listed Russian
or Eastern European women's issues and women's movements as their topic.
If we added Western European research, we can be quite sure to end up
with more Western scholars interested in Russian women's issues than
there are feminist scholars and feminist activists in today’s Russia.
As most of the research is written in English, the people of the former
Soviet Union usually cannot read or afford to purchase it. During the
1990s, Russians were the objects of academic colonisation: they
represented a new and still quite unexplored topic in the business of
academic writing and publishing. At present, even this ambivalent status
is in question, as ‘Eastern Europe’ was not perceived of as selling
enough, once the perestroika boom was over.
I myself belong to this strange group of Western academics. I am
not always sure of being able to justify my research theme: often, when
travelling to a conference, I think that the money would have served
better in the hands of a small Russian NGO. But at least I do think I
understand why so many Western scholars ended up with this research
subject, often long before it became fashionable. This path, which is
also mine, has evidently (and often explicitly) influenced the way in
which we try to conceptualise the country's gender landscape, which is
why I will try to summarise it here.
It is the story of a more or less leftist person, usually a
woman, who first looked to the Soviet Union as an example of living
socialism, or an interesting attempt of women's emancipation. When that
illusion dissolved, the scholar had learned to like and love the country
and the Russian people. After the Gorbachev reforms began, she was
eagerly waiting for a ‘real’ feminism to develop. When the new
Russian women's movement did get organised at the end of the 1980s, she
often developed close personal and organisational ties (including fund
raising) to Russian feminists. Still, Western women were disappointed
that feminism remained a marginal political movement that was rejected
by most Russian women.
Feminism became one of the many unfulfilled expectations the West
nurtured about post-socialist societies (Watson 1999, 23). The
prevalence of anti-feminist values and practices was understood as the
question needing explanation. In the 1980s and 1990s, it became the main
field of inquiry together with the negative changes in the situation of
women during the social and economic reforms of the so-called transition
period. Much less attention was given to the ‘good news’ that many
Russian scholars themselves have tried to emphasise: that Russia had
several new prominent and even pro-feminist women politicians (Temkina
1996); that the Russian independent women's movement was the most active
and well organised of all post-socialist countries and that women's
organisations are a vital part of the developing third sector in Russia
(Liborakina 1996); or that women in Russia have (literally) survived the
transition process much better than the men, whose drastic fall in life
expectancy has still not been explained by social scientists. Obviously,
the initial expectations of many Western feminists caused their academic
attentions to be focused too narrowly.
How are these economic and academic inequalities present in this
research? My work has been part of two research projects, based and
financed in Finland and employing Russian scholars for shorter time
periods. While mainly financing Finnish scholars, the projects have also
provided work as well as educational and publishing opportunities for
Russians researchers (Rotkirch & Haavio-Mannila 1996). The interview
material and the collection of sexual autobiographies are now archived
in St Petersburg and available to Russian scholars (for research based
on these materials, see Baraulina 1996; Lagunova 1996; Temkina 1998;
Zdravomyslova 1999).
There is also the ethical question of the interaction and possible
exploitation that takes place between researchers and respondents.
Autobiographies fortunately represent a form were the latter choose to
participate. About one fourth of the participants in the
autobiographical competition in St Petersburg have received some
monetary rewards for their contribution, either as prizes in the
competition, or as author’s fees in the newspaper publications of
excerpts from the autobiographies that were organized by Elizaveta
Lagunova. Most importantly, many authors stated that they enjoyed and
benefited from the process of writing itself. As usual in
autobiographical competitions, the writers often thank the organisers
for the incentive to write (cf Kontula & Haavio-Mannila 1995). Some
wrote in deep despair, “I do not need your prizes, I have to write
this ... I am crying as I write” (No. 15). Another woman who was
searching for love wondered rhetorically if she was not “perhaps this
moment dreaming about being loved by the one who will read these
lines...” (No. 23). Yet another, a talented woman with higher
education who is nowadays a wealthy housewife (No. 22), wrote in order
to “serve our science at least with this modest opus (So it would not
be in vain that I once raised so many expectations...).” We also had
the authors’ explicit permission for quoting their texts in scientific
literature. I have thus not had the feeling of exploiting the
respondents ‘behind their backs’. Quite on the contrary, their
comments repeatedly provided me with inspiration and encouragement to
write.
In sum, my research is certainly part of the existing
economically, socially and academically unequal structures between East
and West, but has in my understanding at least not aggravated them.
Intellectual
defaults
As always, this research process has been about externalising and
distancing one’s own prejudices and preconceptions. Often it occurred
to me that it is contemporary Finnish family and sexual culture that
needs to be explained as a historical anomaly. The sexual behaviour of
Finnish men and women has become increasingly similar since the sexual
revolution of the 1960s. Today, Finns are even more sexually active and
often express more permissive views than Swedes or Norwegians do
(Kontula & Haavio-Mannila 1995a). Although I write about Russia,
occasional direct comparisons to similar Finnish material will be made.
Otherwise, the comparison takes place on the theoretical and conceptual
level. As my research material consists of people’s intimate
autobiographies, I have thought it appropriate to finish the
Introduction with at least a little of my personal background, in order
to present my personal reading glasses and highlight my initial
intellectual defaults.
I was born in the middle of the 1960s and raised by educated and
liberal parents who believed in (and practised) permissive child
rearing, gender equality and sex education. I was the eldest of four
children, both of my parents were employed and my father always did at
least half of the housework and childcare (while he also held a higher
and more time-consuming professional position). We children perceived
our father as the more forgiving and nurturing one, while mother was the
demanding figure who would never give in and did not like to be woken up
at night or disturbed when she had some time of her own. I was raised to
think that discrimination of women was a deplorable thing of the past
and that there were no crucial differences between men and women.
After the feminist readings in my teens I also believed that
marriage was a hopelessly dated and discriminating institution. At that
time, I thought the question of whether to have children of my own would
be decided in one way or another, some time in the distant future: I
have no memory of any kind of motherhood propaganda or even motherhood
talks during my childhood and youth. The exceptions were provided
during my trips to Russia. My family lived in Moscow in 1977-78 and
after our return to Finland I regularly went back during my childhood
years and early teens to visit my friends from my former Russian school.
In the Soviet Union, adults advised me not spread my knees apart while
sitting, since I was a girl, and not to sit on cold places, since I
should think about my future ability to have children. I was extremely
irritated by these comments.
I was brought up on progressive Scandinavian youth novels about
relationships and sex, and until my early twenties I took several things
for granted: that there was nothing shameful about being naked or about
sexuality (although I explicitly discussed sex only with my best girl-
and boyfriends); that people, including myself, may freely choose
whether or not to marry and to become parents; that some people are
homosexual (although when I had a very intensive relationship with a
girlfriend in my late teens and my parents commented that it almost
looked like a love affair, I found their remark disturbing and
irrelevant); that contraception was the duty and responsibility of both
partners (although I actually always found the topic extremely
embarrassing or simply impossible to raise in intimate settings);
that women should have access to cheap and safe abortions (which I did
not perceive as a moral issue at all).
Mine was not a typical childhood even in Finland, but such an
attitude to sexual and gender issues had become possible in Scandinavia
in the 1960s and 1970s, while remaining impossible in our Eastern
neighbour. I have later come to revise or at least problematise most of
these then unreflected beliefs. Only now do I also understand how
exceptional they were, in a global context.
The Russian autobiographies I have become acquainted with
challenged and shifted most of my initial frames of understanding. One
person who read a manuscript version of this book noted I take care that
the reader would not read only the quotations. But that is one of the
possible readings I have wanted to provide and it has my full
endorsement. As it often happens when dealing with autobiographies, the
researcher did fall in love with practically all the life stories
rendered in these pages.
*********************
Anna Rotkirch
PhD, lehtori/lecturer
Kristiina instituutti/Dept of Women's Studies
POB 59 (Unioninkatu 38 E, 2 krs)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
tel 191 24324 fax 191 23315
*******************
WELCOME TO THE 5th CONFERENCE OF THE ESA!
"VISIONS AND DIVISIONS - CHALLENGES TO EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGY"
Helsinki, August 28- September 1, 2001
http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/esa/