16.03.03)

As the organiser of the forthcoming conference in Bristol entitled
'Stalin's Cultural Legacy' and the individual responsible for
devising this title I would like to respond to the messages posted by
Piotr Kopszak and Reuben Fowkes. Firstly let me state categorically
that no offence was intended, nor I believe, should be inferred from
the title of this conference. As a scholar of Russian cultural
history I am of course aware of the devastating atrocities enacted
upon innocent victims by Stalin's regime. I also recognise that,
being fortunate enough never to have experienced such circumstances,
it is inevitably beyond my comprehension what that suffering could
have meant to individuals, their families and friends. In line with
countless scholars worldwide who choose to study this period in world
history, I unequivocally condemn those atrocities. However, I do not
feel that to deploy the term 'cultural legacy' can or should be
regarded as putting a positive slant on that history or its culture.
A 'culture' is something that exists in its various forms for all
societies in all periods, regardless of whether that culture is
interpreted from within or without as positive or negative. I find it
inconceivable that the Stalinist period did not have a 'culture'
however much the formation, boundaries and values of such may, and
indeed must, be debated. Indeed it is precisely this issue that the
conference seeks to address. As much as there is a historical legacy
there is also surely a cultural legacy to this period and, at the
risk of repeating myself, I struggle to imagine how the simple
recognition that such exists and the positing that it is precisely
this question that needs to be explored, might be construed in any
way as avoiding or diminishing the atrocities perpetrated in the name
of Stalinism.

Reuben Fowkes is correct in assuming that the purpose of the title
was to stimulate debate and to allow speakers to address the complex
impact of Stalinist cultural policies both during the Stalinist era
and later. He, and I might add no other, of the participants in the
conference, judging by the large number of proposals received, have
interpreted the title either as foreclosing debate or indeed,
implying 'positive overtones'. The conference call for papers and
subsequent announcement has, I am delighted to say, attracted
considerable international attention and many comments suggesting
that the exploration of this concept is indeed crucial to any
understanding of twentieth century history. To study both the culture
of that era and the effects that the legacy of that culture have had
on subsequent eras and continue to have to this day seems to me to be
an important and worthy venture. The alternative to engaging directly
with the cultural legacy of the Stalin era might be to ignore, under-
estimate or simplify its significance. To quote a (relatively) recent
author referring to the impact, and this could certainly be extended
to the cultural legacy, of Socialist Realism, 'it is an act of
historical retouching to efface its profound and critical voice. In
any other context we would label this vandalism'. (Joad Raymond:
'Under the Skin of Ideology' in the Aesthetic Arsenal: Socialist
Realism under Stalin 1993).

None of the above is intended as a rebuttal to Piotr Kopszak. Rather
I offer my thanks for raising this issue and giving me the
opportunity to clarify any potential misunderstandings. Nor do I
intend here to launch, or participate further, in a 'virtual' debate
regarding this matter. I simply offer an explanation as to why I, and
many, many others, feel comfortable with the title 'Stalin's Cultural
Legacy' and do NOT regard it as 'inappropriate'. On a more pragmatic
note, as I managed to get the conference web-site address wrong in my
recent 'conference announcement' I might also take the opportunity to
suggest that anyone who might require further information regarding
this event visit:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/ArtHistory/stalinsculturallegacy.html