FlorinLeontinABRAHAM

PROVOCRIEPISTEMOLOGICEALETOTALITARISMULUIOMETODOLOGIEASTUDIULUIREGIMURILORCOMUNISTE

PROVOCRIEPISTEMOLOGICEALETOTALITARISMULUIOMETODOLOGIEASTUDIULUIREGIMURILORCOMUNISTE

Autor:FlorinLeontinABRAHAMConductortiinific:Prof.dr.VasilePUCA

Lucrare realizat n cadrulproiectului Valorificarea identitilor culturale nprocesele globale, cofinanat din Fondul Social European prin ProgramulOperaionalSectorialDezvoltareaResurselorUmane20072013,contractuldefinanarenr.POSDRU/89/1.5/S/59758.Titlurile i drepturile de proprietate intelectual i industrial asuprarezultatelor obinute n cadrul stagiuluide cercetarepostdoctoral aparinAcademieiRomne.

PuncteledevedereexprimatenlucrareaparinautoruluiinuangajeazComisiaEuropeaniAcademiaRomn,beneficiaraproiectului.

Exemplargratuit.Comercializareanaristrintateesteinterzis.

Reproducerea,fieiparialipeoricesuport,esteposibilnumaicuacordulprealabilalAcademieiRomne.

ISBN9789731671130 Depozitlegal:Trim.II2013

FlorinLeontinABRAHAM

Provocriepistemologicealetotalitarismului

Ometodologieastudiuluiregimurilorcomuniste

EdituraMuzeuluiNaionalalLiteraturiiRomne

ColeciaAULAMAGNA

4

5

Cuprins

INTRODUCERE..................................................................................................... 9

PARTEANTI.TOTALITARISMUL.............................................................. 21

I.TOTALITARISMUL:CONCURENAVIZIUNILORPOLITICOEPISTEMICE ............................................................................... 23A.Istoricitateaconceptelor ...........................................................................27

i)Apariianoiunii.PerioadainterbeliciAlDoileaRzboiMondial ..............................................................27

ii)RzboiulReceitotalitarismul.Autoriiclasici ...............................34iii)ReconsiderrialeteorieitotalitarentimpulRzboiuluiRece ....45iv)Revigorareateorieitotalitaredup1989.........................................59

B.Capacitateaexplicativateorieiclasiceatotalitarismului ..................67C.Responsabilitateivinovienregimurilecomuniste......................101

II.COLAPSULCOMUNISMULUIEUROPEAN:DILEMEISTORIOGRAFICE....................................................................... 110A.Cdereacomunismului:ntreidealpoliticiproblem

destudiu ..................................................................................................112B.Deceaureuitrevoluiileanului1989?................................................120

i)Factoriendogeni .................................................................................122ii)Factoriexogeni...................................................................................125iii)Centru ................................................................................................128iv)Periferie..............................................................................................134

C.Controverselecontinu ..........................................................................137

III.STUDIULCOMUNISMULUINEUROPACENTRALIDEEST.CAZULROMNESC............................................................... 142A.Trsturidominantealeistoriografieipostcomuniste......................144

i)Dimensiuneainstituional ...............................................................145ii)Trenduritematice,preferinemetodologice..................................153

6

iii)Istoriografieidecomunizare.........................................................157B.Cazulromnesc........................................................................................164

i)Arhitecturainstituionaldup1989...............................................167ii)Temelepredilectealeistoriografiei.................................................186iii)Istoriografiaromn,ntrerevoluieirestauraiedecatifea?..........................................................................................191

PARTEAADOUA.RENOVAREASTUDIULUICOMUNISMULUI........ 201

IV.ATELIERULISTORICULUICOMUNISMULUI.................................... 203A.Istorierecentistudiulcomunismului ..............................................204B.Surselecercetriicomunismului:implicaiimetodologice................207

i)Izvoareleistoriceprodusededictaturiletotalitare........................208ii)Istoriculisurselecomunismului ...................................................229

C.Metodealeistoricului .............................................................................236i)Metodaistoric ...................................................................................238ii)Metodacomparativ .........................................................................241iii)Anchetaoral ....................................................................................256iv)Metodestatistice...............................................................................263v)Studiuldecaznistoriografie..........................................................266

D.Istoriografieimemoriesocial ............................................................268

V.CERCETTORULISTORIEIRECENTE:SPECTATORULANGAJAT.................................................................................................... 275A.Istoriculispectatoriisi....................................................................275

i)Contactulistoriculuicupublicul......................................................275ii)Cecredceteniidesprecomunism? ..............................................277iii)ncutareaunorexplicaii ..............................................................283

B.Condiiameserieideistoric....................................................................286i)Condiiiprofesionale..........................................................................286ii)Condiiimateriale..............................................................................289

C.Rolulistoricului,ntretaumaturgieiobiectivism.....................290D.Elementealeuneieticiacercettoruluiistorieirecente ....................295

7

i)Justiiarismul .......................................................................................298ii)Moralafaptelorimoralaistoricului ..............................................300iii)Excesuldeistorie..............................................................................300iv)Drepturileactoriloristoriei .............................................................301

E.NoidireciincercetareacomunismuluidinRomnia ......................302i)Maiareviitoristoriapolitic?...........................................................302ii)Istoriaeconomic,untabupentruistorici? ...................................305iii)Istoriasocialiateaptucenicii .................................................307iv)Istoriacultural:overitabilterraincognita ..................................309

CONCLUZII ....................................................................................................... 312

BIBLIOGRAFIE .................................................................................................. 319

ADDENDA ......................................................................................................... 357

ABSTRACT...........................................................................................357

SUMMARY...........................................................................................363

Listatabelelor

Tabel3.1InstituiidestudierearegimuluicomunistnEuropaCentralideEst ............................................................................150

Tabel3.2InstituiicreatenRomniadup1989pentrustudiulcomunismului/istorieisecoluluiXX.............................................175

Tabel3.3Ariiletematicealeistoriografieiromnedinperioada19892010..........................................................................................188

Tabel4.1Tipologieasurseloristorieiregimurilorcomuniste...................231Tabel4.2Diferenentreanchetaoraliistoriaoral .......................258Tabel5.1Rolulsocialalistoricului................................................................294Tabel5.2Noidireciidecercetareacomunismului....................................311

357

ADDENDA

Abstract

Epistemologicalchallengesoftotalitarianism.Amethodologyforstudyingcommunistregimes

Theneed for this research isprovidedby theabundanceofstudies,

memoriesor critical referencesabout communism inCentralandEasternEurope. During last decades, a huge quantity of historical informationcommunismwasaccumulated,but thequalityof its interpretation isverydifferent,fromstudieswhichresistthetestoftime,methodologicallywellfounded, to real historiography ballast, including those researchesgradually becoming unusable for academic international standards andrigours.Therefore,criticalreflectionconcerningresultsofovertwodecadesofresearchingcommunistregimeshasbecomeimperative.

Researching a vast international literature dedicated tototalitarianism allows us to emphasize the historical contextualization ofthe main concepts and interpretative theories concerning communistregimes.Itisquiteeasytodistinguishadialecticsofconceptsandtheoriesregardingtotalitarianism,theinitialstageinwhichtotalitarianismhadbeenconsidered apositiveproject,within thebroader currentof interwar fascism,beingquicklycounterbalancedbycriticalapproachesofvariousdoctrinalshadesregardingthesamephenomenon.DuringtheColdWartime,totalitarianismwasoneoffundamentalideologicalconceptsusedbytheWest in order to categorize the communist regime, at the same timeindicatingthemoralandfunctionalconvergenceofStalinismandNazism.Even if theclassical totalitarian theorywassubject tosubstantialcriticismandreinterpretationwithinWesternsocialandpoliticalresearchduringthe70s and 80s, itmanaged to resist precisely because it has an importantethicalfunction.AfterthefallofcommunisminEurope,totalitariantheorywas revived, but its explanatory capacity concerning historical researchproved to be limited, in light of new research sources. The great

358

epistemological innovation instudyingcommunismconsisted in turningclassical totalitarianism intoanew tenet,notsomuch formethodologicalreasons but for political andmoral considerations. Antitotalitarianismhas become one of those good concepts, endowed with massiveemotional load,as itsubsumescondemningallatrocitiesachievedduringthetimesofcommunismandfascism.

Studying of communist regimes is a fully expansive quantitative,thematic and methodological task. The mark of Sovietology on thehistoriographyofcommunistregimesfromCentralandEasternEuropeancountries, two decades after the unravelling of the Soviet empire is stilleasily identifiable. The historiography revolution in studyingcommunism, which was so emphatically mentioned after 1989, is anunfinishedproject.Archivesbecome,mostofthem,accessibletohistorianscommunities, research institutions havemultiplied until redundancy, aswell as research programmes, but a Cold War spirit of revenge andideological impregnation of the historical discourse seems to havesubsistedtothepassingoftime,alsobeingpassedontonewgenerationsofresearchers.Theethosesofmoralhistory,theexaltationoftherapeuticvirtuesofhistorical knowledge upon the change of the postcommunist public space, areeasily identifiablewithin the predominant historical discourse regardingrecent past. The philosophical bases upon which militant history isgroundedcanbefoundintheclassicaltheoryoftotalitarianism,especiallyinHannahArendtsworks,whichhasbecomeanineluctablelandmarkfor20thcenturyresearchers.

InCentralandEasternEurope,thetotalitariantheoryhasbecomeanepitomeofpolitically correctnessapplied tohistoriography.TheNazismCommunism comparison has been trivialized, becoming during lastdecadesacanonicalapproach,inhistoriographyaswellasinpolitics.Thesimultaneous condemnation of fascism and communism, by identifyingtheir unhealthy role in the history of humanity, is the main result oftotalitarian theory. Comparative and genealogical study of fascism andcommunism has become a stereotype, as we have shown during ouranalysis, being one of the ideological remnants of the Cold War. Therepressivenatureandactionsoffascistandcommunistregimesagainstthe

359

dignity and freedom of human beings are indisputable in factual terms,and essential factsorat least theirperceptionare commongoodsamongEuropeandemocraticsocieties.Tothisend,totalitariantheoryhasfulfilledits ideologicalroleandcanbewithdrawnfrom thehistoriographycircuit.Nonetheless, the totalitarian perspective upon the history of communistregimes isstillsostrongly impregnated in the thoughtsofhistorians,butalso in the political discourse, that any claim to quarantine the termtotalitarianism is lacking realism.Our suggestion, addressedmainly tothe20thcenturyhistoryresearcherscommunity,istobecomeconsciousofthe cognitiveweaknesses of totalitarian theories and concepts, using thetermonlyforitsethicalvirtuesandlessforthemethodologicalones.

ThegradualexitofcommunistregimeshistoriographyfromthelogicofpragmatictherapeutichistoryspecifictotheColdWarisperceptibleduetotheemergenceofanalternativediscourseconcerningrecentpast,comingfrom sociocultural history, which attempts to stabilize its epistemicfoundationsinpoststructuralism.Socioculturalhistoryisstillperceivedasa subversive product of the intellectual left, which questions thepredominanceofpoliticalhistoryhavingascentralsubject the totalitarianstate,ignoringsocietywithitssuccessivetransformations.

The differences between East ofWest concerning approaching thehistory of communism, towhich alternativemethodological devices arededicated,mustnotbeinterpretedexclusivelyusingthetraditionalgridofthegapbetweenWestandEast,ofthelattersdelay,butalsoasaformofgeopoliticaldifferentiationbetweenthetwopartsofEurope.ThehistoricaldiscourseabouttheEastssufferancedoesnotalwaysfinditsbestaudiencein theWest because it is inevitably accompanied by evoking theWestsmoralduty towards formerSovietblocstates.Recently, in theEast it isincreasingly stated that repairing the injustices of the past must beaccomplishednotonlybymereaccessiontoNATOandtheEuropeanUnion,butalsobyimplementingEuropeanpoliciesofcohesionfinancedbytheWest,whichbecamericherduringtheColdWar.Or, inthecontextofthecurrenteconomic crisis,duringwhich theWest creates itsowndiscourseaboutthelazy,corruptandinefficientEast,thetraditionalhistoricaldiscourse, centred on sufferance, also becomes a subtle instrument ofreactingtowardsthepoliciesofdifferentiationwithintheEuropeanUnion.

360

Followingthecontactwiththestudyofcommunism,historiography,asscientifictopic,didnotregainitscognitiveautonomy.Atoneextremeofhistoriography approaches there is a primitive and counterproductivepositivism and at the other extreme there are eclectic narrativeconstructions (sometimesexaggeratedlydefinedasinterdisciplinary), inwhichtherelationsbetweencollectivememoryandhistoricalmemoryareimprecise and confuse, lacking a coherent and unified methodologicalstand. Between the two extreme types ofwriting historywe identify abroadspectrumofstudythemesandresearchmethods,butwithoutbeingable to identifyan integratingdirection.Politicalhistory isquantitativelypredominant, but its innovating potential is reduced. The usage ofsociological concepts created during the ColdWar in order to describecommunist regimes is a frequent situation, but starting from a recentlydiscoveredfactualbasis.Theresultofconceptualmethodologicalinertiaisa repetitive, stereotypehistoriography, inwhich themain accumulationsarequantitativeandlessinthedirectionofnewinterpretativeperspectives.

The study of the communist regime in recent Romanianhistoriographyhassomecommonfeatureswithhistoriographyfromotherstates fromCentralandEasternEurope.Predominanceof the therapeutichistorical discourse thematically anchored in the political andmethodologicalhistoryof (neo)positivismcaneasilybe identified in thestudyof communismwithin the ten states,whichbelonged to theSovietspace,accedingtotheEuropeanUnionin2004and2007.Theemergenceofseveralpublic institutionsspecialized in thehistoryofcommunism,oftenin anunfriendly competitionwith one another, is common to thewholearea from theBaltic to theBlack Sea and theAdriatic.With the notableexceptions of the KARTA Foundation in Poland and the Open SocietyArchiveswithintheCentralEuropeanUniversityonBudapest,financingofhistorical research isachieved frompublicbudgets,being legitimatednotonly by the humanist imperative of knowing the past, but especially byturning historiography into a sui generis form of transitional justice. Thestrongrelationbetweenhistoryandmemory,comingtoopenconfusion,isanotherpredominantfeatureofstudyingcommunismintheEastEuropeanregion.Culturalconflictswithin thehistoriansguildand thecompetitionforsupremacycanbeeasilyencounterednotonly inRomaniabutalso in

361

the other countries of the region. The specific feature of Romanianhistoriography is given by the quasiabsence of assumed neoMarxisthistorical literature, unlike Poland orHungary, states inwhichMarxistcritical thinking has a prestigious tradition. Theweakness of RomanianneoMarxisthistoriographymustbecorroboratedwiththerelativelysmallnumber of historiography projects alternative to those inspired by thetheoryof totalitarianism.Theneed foracriticaldiscourse towardspredominanthistoriographynarrationisnotcausebyideologicalreasons,butbymethodologicalones,beingconvinced thatscientificdisputesanddebatescanhelp to revivea research fieldwhich seems to function following theautomaticpilotprinciple,inamechanicalandstereotypemanner.

Meditating upon the perspectives of studying communist regimesreveals tous twomainchallenges lyingaheadof the researcherof recentpast. The first of them refers to the relation of the historian not to hisresearchobjectbutwiththepublictowhichitaddressesand,consequently,with the sponsors of hiswork. The history of communism increasinglyloses its thaumaturgical function,because the threatof totalitarianism fornew generations does not have a direct reference object and the Evil insociety is increasingly associated notwith the period of the communistregime,butwiththeyearsoftransitiontodemocracyandmarketeconomy.

The second challenge for the historian of communist regimes iscommontothewholerecenthistoryandconsistsintheperverseeffectsofmemory democratization, a process following which researchers losetheirroyalrightofintermediatingknowledge.Abundanceofmemoirsandothermemoryplaces,proliferationofthepastspopularizationhistorytypeexercisepressureuponthenatureofhistoricalknowledge.As longasanypresentationofthepastrisksbeingassociatedwithhistoriography,whatistheroleofthehistorian?Thedangerofdissolvinghistoricalknowledge isincreasedbythefactthatwithinthehistoriansguildthepreoccupationforamethodological consolidation of the discipline and demarcation of theresearch fields inrelation toothersociohumanisticdisciplines (sociology,anthropology)ismarginal.

Thebookwasespeciallyconceived inorder tobecomeauseful toolforresearchersofcommunism.Generaltheoreticalreferenceswerereduced

362

asmuchaspossible,inordertoavoidovercrowdingwithelementsthatcanbe easilygraspedwithin the international specialized literature.The fundamentalobjectiveof thisproject is togenerate critical reflectionsamongresearchersofrecentpast.Itisnotanossifiedresearchendingaroadbutitsets to generate curiosity and interest for broadening the debate,whoseexpectedresultisaricherandmorediversehistoriography,whichofferstothepublicnewfactuallandmarksandinterpretativeperspectives.

Thefacesoftotalitarianismaremultipleandmultifaceted,bitinorderto fight against them, they must be precisely localized, systematicallydescribedandanalyzedindepthinrelationtothehumannature,inordertoavoidhistoryexcess,which isasharmfulas lackingaconscienceofthepast.

363

Summary

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 9

FIRSTPART:TOTALITARIANISM.................................................................. 21

I.TOTALITARIANISM:THECOMPETINGPOLITICOEPISTEMOLOGICALVISIONS ............................................... 23A.Historyofconcepts ...................................................................................27

i)Emergenceofthenotion.TheinterwarperiodandtheSecondWorldWar ................................................................27

ii)TheColdWarandtotalitarianism.Classicalauthors ....................34iii)ReconsiderationsoftotalitariantheoryduringtheColdWar .....45iv)Revivaloftotalitariantheoryafter1989..........................................59

B.Explanatorycapacityoftheclassicaltotalitariantheory .....................67C.Responsibilityandguiltwithincommunistregimes .........................101

II.THECOLLAPSEOFEUROPEANCOMMUNISM:HISTORIOGRAPHYDILEMMAS.............................................................. 110A.Thefallofcommunism:betweenpoliticalidealandstudytopic ....112B.Whydidthe1989revolutionssucceed? ...............................................120

i)Endogenousfactors ............................................................................122ii)Exogenousfactors .............................................................................125iii)Centre.................................................................................................128iv)Periphery ...........................................................................................134

C.Controversiescontinue...........................................................................137

III.THESTUDYOFCOMMUNISMINCENTRALANDEASTERNEUROPE.THEROMANIANCASE............................. 142A.Prevailingfeaturesofpostcommunisthistoriography.....................144

i)Institutionaldimension......................................................................145ii)Thematictrends,methodologicalpreferences ..............................153

364

iii)Historiographyanddecommunization .......................................157B.TheRomaniancase..................................................................................164

i)Institutionalarchitectureafter1989 .................................................167ii)Favouritetopicsofhistoriography .................................................186iii)Romanianhistoriography,betweenrevolutionandvelvetrestoration?..................................................................191

SECONDPART:RENOVATIONOFTHESTUDYOFCOMMUNISM.... 201

IV.WORKSHOPOFTHEHISTORIANOFCOMMUNISM....................... 203A.Recenthistoryandstudyofcommunism............................................204B.Sourcesofresearchconcerningcommunism ......................................207

i)Historicalsourcesgeneratedbytotalitariandictatorships ...........208ii)Historyandsourcesofcommunism...............................................229

C.Methodsofthehistorian ........................................................................236i)Thehistoricalmethod ........................................................................238ii)Thecomparativemethod .................................................................241iii)Oralinvestigations ...........................................................................256iv)Statisticmethods ..............................................................................263v)Historiographycasestudy ...............................................................266

D.Historiographyandsocialmemory .....................................................268

V.THERESEARCHEROFRECENTHISTORY:THEPARTICIPATINGSPECTATOR.................................................... 275A.Thehistorianandhisspectators .......................................................275

i)Historianscontactwiththepublic ..................................................275ii)Whatdopeoplebelieveaboutcommunism? ................................277iii)Searchingforexplanations..............................................................283

B.Conditionsofthehistorianscraft .........................................................286i)Professionalconditions......................................................................286ii)Materialconditions ...........................................................................289

C.Theroleofthehistorian,betweenthaumaturgyandobjectivism ...................................................................................290

365

D.Elementsofanethicoftherecenthistoryresearcher ........................295i)Justitiarism...........................................................................................298ii)Moralityoffactsandmoralityofthehistorian .............................300iii)Historyexcess ...................................................................................300iv)Rightsofhistoryactors....................................................................301

E.NewRomaniancommunismresearchdirections ...............................302i)Doespoliticalhistoryhaveanyfuture?...........................................302ii)Economichistory,atabooforhistorians?......................................305iii)Socialhistoryawaitsitsapprentices..............................................307iv)Culturalhistory:arealterraincognita ............................................309

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 312

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 319