Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
enable the integration of the women's component into the overall story have largely focused upon Western and American women. Usually the historical issues raised on and by Eastern Europeans focus on national histo ries and ideologies, even when the latter are imprecise and the former lack cohesion. Women’s history, on the other hand, is often lacking in the self definition and the ideological formulation that create the prerequisites of such study. The development of women's groups, being singularly devoid of ideological constructs and consid erations, removes them from generally identifiable his torical studies. Under the circumstances, that is tanta mount to saying that the women failed to develop a historical consciousness that could be recognized as valid by historians. The same can be said about Eastern Europe as a unit; it lacks self-consciousness and self validation. Perhaps, we should formultate the statement differ ently: historians were blind to the developments in the history of women, just as they failed to discern the common threads that are characteristic of Eastern Europe. The accepted model was national or state his tory: neither women nor Eastern Europe fitted the mold. Historians write about issues they can define, order and articulate. The history of women, as the history of East Europe, does not lend itself into neat categories and clearly discernable stages. For the most part, the study of Eastern Europe cen ters on the twin issues of nationalism and economic backwardness. Although the boundaries of Eastern Europe have not been clearly defined, studies devoted to this region perceive it as an entity distinct from the Soviet Union and its predecessor, the Russian Empire. Thus, for example, the latter is studied as a centralized state and an analysis of its economy usually subordi nated to the study of the state’s political system. On the other hand, the heterogeneity of Eastern Europe, its patchwork quilt of nationalities, its religious and social differences, the discontinuities of its political develop ment, and finally, its numerous linguistic systems have stood in the way of coherent studies of Eastern Europe as an entity. The region’s failure to articulate an identity that transcends national borders further complicates the problem .2 Notwithstanding sporadic attempts by intellectuals, the concept of “ East Central Europe” or a “Mitteleu- ropa,” never became an academic field like the con cepts of “ Russia” or the “Soviet Union.” These latter concepts, having as their axis a unified state, have fos tered studies which, ironically, are beginning to eluci date the heterogeneity of its subject. On the other hand, the concept of “ Eastern Europe,” lacking as it does the axis of a centralized state, has not developed studies which would flesh out the many common threads that unify it. Totalitarian states deliberately regulate all informa tion, so our knowledge of closed societies, even rela tively contemporary ones, has repeatedly proven to be limited. The heterogeneity of Eastern Europe and its secondary political importance have prevented scholars from reaching effective generalizations, like those made about Russia, despite the fact that Eastern Europe was not always a completely closed society. Needless to say, the skills necessary to read a woman’s dimension into a limited body of information can seriously enhance our study of such societies. Work in women’s history has taught us to ask questions which historians do not readily ask and look for source materials at places that are not necessarily obvious. Women’s studies — and feminism when defined as the study of women — have taught us to take a closer look at accepted categories. It has taught us to look at reality beyond the accepted categories of either history or ideology. In the last few years, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself have proven the limitations of communism and its inability to adapt to a modern society. Yet few scholars predicted the rapid turn of events. They may have foreseen the attrition of Soviet forces in Eastern Europe; the erosion of Communist ideology and the lib eralization of the Soviet state; yet another cultural thaw that could draw in wider circles of candidates for reha bilitation; and greater religious freedom for structured faiths. But even the most imaginative observers failed to predict the overall open unabashed disintegration of the ideological and organizational underpinnings of the whole Communist system. Moreover, it appeared to us in the West that only a few select dissidents would fathom the dissolution of Communist parties, or the admission that not only Stalin, but Lenin, and even Marx himself may have been wrong. Certainly, we did not expect that such views could resonate among the masses. Ideology, historical power politics, and Kremlinol- ogy — the traditional approaches to the study of East ern Europe and the Soviet Union — did not provide us with a paradigm for the protean movement which today characterizes daily events in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and Russia proper. What is interesting is the basic similarity of the developments taking place in both Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Standard works on Eastern Europe stress the pervasive importance of nationalism in the area. Indeed, communist regimes became successful there to the degree to which they reflected the nationalist aspirations of a particular group .3 The truism about the importance of nationalism in Eastern Europe is especially relevant now in view of the renewed assertion of cultural autonomy and political sovereignty by the peoples of Eastern Europe and those within the Soviet Union. Eastern European nationalities tend to be characterized as separatist, authoritarian, potentially anti-semitic, divisive and a threat to peace. Historical writing in Eastern Europe often reenforces
Page load link
Go to Top
1 
2-3 
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-13 
14-15 
16-17 
18-19 
20-21 
22-23 
24-25 
26-27 
28-29 
30-31 
32-33 
34-35 
36-37 
38-39 
40 
