Establishing the first academic institute of sociology — ICSR AS USSR, 1968: the atmosphere and parties involved

Abstract

This article analyzes the alignment of forces (social subjects) and the socio­political context prevalent during the time of the Khrushchev thaw, which lead to establishing the very first academic institute of sociology in 1968 — the Institute for Concrete Social Research (ICSR) AS USSR. Certain facts dating back to the 1940’s are clarified concerning the background of the ICSR under the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy ofSciences, using data from the Russian Academy of Sciences’ archive. It is a well-known fact that at the end of the 1950’s and the beginning of the 1960’s a centralized hierarchical system was in place to manage Soviet science, which functioned under stringent control from the communist party. One of the more common opinions states that sociology at the time was establishing itself in a desperate struggle against authorities. Among the issues analyzed is the nature of that struggle, as well as who was able to overcome the system and how, in order to establish sociology as an official discipline, while creating the necessary conditions for instituting the ICSR. Considered are three interacting parties which participated in this process, i.e. social subjects — the emerging sociological community, academic leaders and party-political authorities. Shown are the nature and the degree of interest on behalf of each subject, as well as the nature of interactions between sociologists and leading academics, sociologists and party-political authorities, and between branches of government. It is argued that during the Khrushchev thaw these interactions bore various aspects, both negative and positive, and that the popular thesis about a “desperate struggle for sociology” against authorities is a one-sided and exaggerated interpretation of the true picture. It is revealed that the emergence of sociology at the earliest stages, together with the establishment of the first academic institute, was due not only to a “sociological movement”, as in a widespread development of sociological research, but also an “institutional and administrative movement” embodied in the academic leadership, as well as interest and support on behalf of party-political authorities.Analyzed are the ideological conditions for establishing the ICSR. Namely — the confrontation and subsequent compromise between “Marxist sociology” (historical materialism) and empirical (“concrete”) evaluation of society. It is shown that a compromise between the parties involved is what determined the initial official specialization of the Institute, in the form of concrete social research.