MONOGRÁFICO / MONOGRAPHIC
8
Soviet empire, Childhood, and Education
Imperio soviético, infancia y educación
Iveta Silova* & Garine Palandjian**
doi:
10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
Recibido: 12 de marzo de 2018
Aceptado: 9 de mayo de 2018
*Iveta SIlova is professor and director of the Centre for the Advanced Studies in Global Education at Mary Lou
Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. She holds a Ph.D. in comparative education and political sociology from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University. Her research focuses on
the study of globalisation and post-socialist education transformations, including intersections between postcolonialism and post-socialism after the Cold War. Since 2008, Iveta has served as a co-editor (with Noah W.
Sobe) of European Education: Issues and Studies (a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal published by Taylor &
Francis). Datos de contacto: E-mail: Iveta.Silova@asu.edu
**GarIne PalandjIan is a Ph.D. student in Educational Policy and Evaluation at Mary Lou Fulton Teachers
College at Arizona State University (ASU). Her current research focuses on Soviet and post-Soviet education
transformations in Armenia, including childhood, gender, and national identities. Prior to ASU, she worked at
the American University of Armenia (2013-2017) where she set up the Centre for Student Success and student
support services. Garine received an IREX Individual Advanced Research Opportunity fellowship to conduct
fieldwork as part of her research on peace education in Armenia (2012). She has Master’s degree in Comparative and International Education from Lehigh University. Datos de contacto: E-mail: gpalandjian@asu.edu
Revista Española de Educación Comparada | núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
ISSN 2174-5382
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
Abstract
Children constituted a key element of the Soviet empire-building project, reconfiguring
childhoods and refashioning the colonial space itself. Children of different ethnicities
across the territories of the Soviet republics were to be united by the Russian language
and a sense of Soviet patriotism, reflected in such political slogans as “friendship of all
people,” “interethnic equalisation,” and “internationalism.” Education curriculum and
activities were utilised to facilitate social and cultural “merging” of all ethnic groups
on the basis of the Soviet Russian language and culture. At the same time, the Soviet
empire advanced the idea of “unity in diversity,” allowing national minorities the right
to self-determination and some political autonomy within a socialist context. Drawing
on post-colonial theory and critical geography studies, this article looks at how early
literacy textbooks were used to shape Soviet childhood by regulating children’s minds,
bodies, habits, as well as “locating” them in the empire’s space and time. The article
provides a brief historical context of the Soviet empire-building project, followed by a
cross-national analysis of early literacy textbooks published in Russia, Armenia, Latvia,
and Ukraine. Our goal is to highlight the continuities, contradictions, and ruptures in the
vision of the Soviet childhood - and the Soviet future more broadly - as it travelled from
the empire’s centre (Moscow) to its geographically diverse peripheries (Armenia, Latvia,
and Ukraine).
Key Words: soviet education; Soviet empire; childhood; comparative education
Resumen
Los niños constituyeron un elemento clave del proyecto de construcción del imperio
soviético, la reconfiguración de la infancia y la remodelación del espacio colonial en sí.
Los niños de diferentes etnias en los territorios de las repúblicas soviéticas debían estar
unidos por el idioma ruso y por un sentimiento de patriotismo soviético, manifiesto en
lemas políticos como la «amistad de todos», la «igualdad interétnica» y el «internacionalismo». El currículum educativo y las actividades se utilizaron para facilitar la «fusión»
social y cultural de todos los grupos étnicos sobre la base del idioma y la cultura rusa
soviética. Al mismo tiempo, el imperio soviético promulgó la idea de la «unidad en la
diversidad», permitiendo a las minorías nacionales el derecho a la autodeterminación y
cierta autonomía política dentro de un contexto socialista. Basándose en la teoría postcolonial y los estudios de geografía crítica, este artículo analiza cómo se usaron los libros de
texto de alfabetización temprana para moldear la infancia soviética mediante la regularización de las mentes, los cuerpos y los hábitos de los niños, así como «ubicándolos»en
el espacio y el tiempo del imperio. El artículo proporciona un breve contexto histórico
del proyecto de construcción del imperio soviético, seguido de un análisis internacional
de los libros de texto de alfabetización temprana publicados en Rusia, Armenia, Letonia
y Ucrania. Nuestro objetivo es resaltar las continuidades, contradicciones y rupturas en
la visión de la infancia soviética —y el futuro soviético de manera más amplia—, viajando
desde el centro del Imperio (Moscú) a sus periferias geográficamente diversas (Armenia,
Letonia y Ucrania).
Palabras clave: educación soviética; Imperio soviético; infancia; educación comparada
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
148
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
1. Introduction
Children were at the forefront of the Soviet empire-building project. From the ‘civilizing missions’ in Central Asia in the early 1920s to the forceful annexation of the Baltic
republics in the late 1930s, the expansion of the Soviet empire mirrored the logic of other
European colonial powers, which commonly justified their colonial pursuits in the name
of children - “to ensure a better future for them, to save their souls, [or] to teach their
parents how to live their lives” (Cannella & Viruru, 2004, p. 3). In this context, child
development was equated with national development - both in economic and political
terms - placing children “on the ladder of evolutionary progress towards modernization” (Millei, Silova, & Piattoeva, 2018, p. 232; see also Pomfret, 2016; Burman, 2008).
Colonial territories were viewed as ‘childlike’ and in need of assistance and control, while
children functioned as both “an index” of civilization and modernity and “the key arena
in which to instil such civilization” (Burman, 1998, p. 77). The association between children and empire-building was thus firmly established as a key element of modernity
(and coloniality), reconfiguring childhoods and refashioning the colonial space itself.
While putting childhood at the heart of their colonial pursuits, the Soviet authorities employed somewhat different rhetoric and strategies of empire-building compared
to the European colonial powers. One difference was in the approach of conceptualizing childhood. Unlike the Western notions of children as vulnerable, dependent, and
weak (see Burman, 2008), the Soviet empire-building strategy relied on the visions of
children as “independent, rational and powerful agents of the revolution,” explicitly
rejecting Western modernity’s views of childhood (Kirschenbaum, 2001, p. 5). In fact,
Kirschenbaum (2001) argues that the Soviet authorities tended to conflate the distinction between “flesh and blood” children and the “cultural construction” of ideas about
childhood, presenting the images of children as “mirrors of reality rather than myths
and metaphors” (p. 2). In the Soviet social imagination and education policy-making,
children thus appeared as both the “ultimate model citizens of the Soviet state” and the
“models for adults,” embodying a new social order and actively participating in building
the Soviet future (Kelly, 2008, p. 110). While not necessarily liberating children from the
adult supervision or state control, the Soviet approach to childhood nevertheless had
important implications for education policies, school curriculum, and political socialisation practices, affecting children’s schooling and everyday lives.
Another difference between the Soviet and European empires stemmed from the
relationships established between the colonial centre and its peripheries. Following the
October Revolution in 1917 and the subsequent demise of the Russian Empire, the Soviet
Union explicitly declared itself “anti-imperialist” compared to the Western colonial powers (Roberts, 2014). Between the early 1920s and late 1930s,1 the USSR consolidated its
peripheral territories into a federalist system, which was organised (at least in theory)
along ethnopolitical units and encompassed fifteen Soviet Socialist Republics, spanning
the territory from Central Asia and the Caucasus to the Baltic states. By bringing together
people of different cultures, languages, and histories, the Soviet government envisioned
that each Soviet republic and its titular (non-Russian) nationalities would have the right
1
In chronological order, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) incorporated the following
republic: Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine in 1922, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in 1924; Tajikistan in 1929;
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan in 1936; the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania) in 1939; and Moldova in 1940.
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
149
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
to national self-determination and some political autonomy within “a proper socialist
context and in such a way that did not challenge Soviet rule” (see Roberts, 2014, p. 15).2
In the area of education, this strategy entailed the right for titular (non-Russian) nationalities to maintain their cultural heritage and receive education in the native languages,
while simultaneously learning Russian as the language of interethnic communication.
Children of different ethnicities across the territories of the Soviet republics were to be
united by Russian language and a sense of Soviet patriotism, manifesting in such political slogans as ‘friendship of all people,’ ‘interethnic equalisation,’ and ‘internationalism.’
As Zaslavsky (1997) aptly noted, “for decades Soviet propaganda with its ubiquitous antiimperialist and anti-colonialist overtones lived off these early attempts to support ethnic
minorities” (p. 85).
Despite its strong anti-imperialist rhetoric, the Soviet Union nevertheless functioned
as an empire, with Moscow as the central location of governance and policy-making
(Zaslavsky, 1997; Martin, 2001; Roberts, 2014). Its imperialistic features became more
visible in practice when the socialist principle of “unity in diversity,” which guided
early nationality policies of the 1920s and 1930s, eventually evolved into privileging the
Russian language and Russian speakers in different Soviet republics. In particular, the
Soviet nationality policy deliberately shifted towards overt Russification shortly after the
World War II, aiming at social and cultural “merging” of all ethnic groups on the basis
of the Soviet Russian language and culture. It resulted in the steady decline in the use
of national languages, decrease in enrolments in schools with native language education, and the overall linguistic and cultural assimilation of national minorities (Silver
1974; Karklins, 1986). Throughout the history of the USSR, the Soviet empire-building
project was thus characterised by a strong tension between ethnocultural identity promotion, on the one hand, and assimilation into the Soviet Russian nationhood, on the
other hand, leading to many complex and contradictory outcomes (Gorenburg, 2006;
Pavlenko, 2013). In fact, some scholars argue that this unresolved tension enabled the
various ethnic groups to maintain their ethnocultural awareness and develop a stronger
sense of national consciousness, eventually contributing to the dissolution of the Soviet
Union in 1991 (Brubaker, 1996; Barkey & von Hagen, 1997).
This article examines the role of education in the Soviet-empire building project,
focusing specifically on the ways the Soviet government used children and the discourses
about childhood to simultaneously shape both Soviet and ethnocultural identities. For
the purposes of this paper, we define childhood broadly to encompass children’s experiences in formal schooling from elementary through high school education,3 although
most of the empirical data is drawn from early literacy textbooks used in elementary
schools. More specifically, we explore how textbooks were used to shape Soviet childhood
by regulating children’s minds, bodies, habits, as well as “locating” them in the empire’s
2
In the education sphere, this meant that most education policy decisions were made in Moscow and
then diffused through the national Ministries of Education. In each Soviet republic, Ministries of Education
were therefore responsible for the implementation of centrally articulated policies, while at the same time
maintaining some autonomy to shape their national curriculum within the standardised boundaries.
3
The Soviet educational system was organised into three levels. Elementary schools (nachalnoye
obrazovanie) encompassed 4 and later 3 classes, secondary schools encompassed 7 and later 8 classes
and were called “incomplete secondary education” (nepolnoye sredneye obrazavaniye). This level was
compulsory for all children until 1981. Since 1981, “complete secondary education” level (polnoye sredneye
obrazavaniye) became compulsory. This level encompassed 10 and, in some republics (e.g., titular schools
in the Baltic repuvlics), 11 years. Children began elementary education at the age of eight.
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
150
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
space and time. By focusing on early literacy textbooks, the present article examines how
the vision of the Soviet childhood, which was centrally articulated in Moscow, became
translated - both literally and figuratively - onto the pages of early literacy textbooks
published in the Soviet republics of Armenia, Latvia, and Ukraine. In what follows,
we provide a brief historical context of the Soviet empire-building project, outline our
theoretical and methodological approach that draws on post-colonial studies and critical
discourse analysis, and then present a cross-national analysis of early literacy textbooks
published in Russia, Armenia, Latvia, and Ukraine. Our goal is to highlight the continuities, contradictions, and ruptures in the vision of the Soviet childhood - and the Soviet
future more broadly - as it travelled from the empire’s centre (Moscow) to its geographically diverse peripheries (Armenia, Latvia, and Ukraine).4
2. Building the Soviet empire: Historical
Background
The rise and fall of the Soviet empire is generally discussed in relation to the “national
question,” that is the Soviet nationality regime, which attempted to “institutionalize the
existence of multiple nations and nationalities as fundamental constituents of the state
and its citizenry” (Brubaker, 1996, p. 23). The formation of the USSR was premised on
the vision of granting national self-determination to different ethnolinguistic groups,
which were oppressed under the former Russian empire, supporting the development
of national languages and cultures while at the same time developing a broader sense
of belonging to the Soviet empire. In 1923, the Russian Communist Party launched the
policy of korenizatsiia (indigenisation or nativisation), aimed to promote a harmony
between national and linguistic identity through establishing ethnoterritorial autonomies
to promote national cultures, languages, and cadres. This policy demarcated peoples by
their (perceived) discrete ethnic and linguistic characteristics, and through ideological
and real administrative and institutional processes alike, “sequestered these peoples into
their own physical spaces—territories drawn on maps, ostensibly representing homogeneous ethnorepublics” (Silova, Mead, & Palandijan, 2012, p. 105).5 As Smith, Law,
Wilson, Bohr, and Allworth (1998) explain, the institutionalisation of ethnorepublics
made nationality divisions “an integral part and reference point of native and public life
and an organisational basis for reinforcing a new sense of local national identities” (p. 6).
Deriving from the stem koren- (“root,” meaning “rooting”) and commonly used in
the phase korennoi narod (indigenous people), the word korenizatsiia reflected decolonizing rhetoric of the Bolshevik government and its support for a multinational state.
Korenizatsiia promoted the distinctive national identities among different groups
through “the formation of national territories staffed by national elites using their own
national languages,” as well as through “the promotion of symbolic markers of national
identity: national folklore, museums, dress, food, costumes, opera, poets, progressive
4
Given the space limitations, this paper will only focus on the Soviet Union and will discuss neither
the Soviet influence on other eastern bloc countries in Eastern/Central Europe or Asia nor the Cold War
dynamics and its influence on Soviet education.
5
Interestingly, the Soviet practice of fixing ethnolinguistic groups, whether they really represented
a singular group or not, to particular physical and institutional/administrative divisions created nations
where there were not as was the case with the Central Asian states (Brubaker, 1996; Suny, 1995; see also
Silova et al., 2012).
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
151
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
historical events, and classic literary works” (Martin, 2001, p. 74). In this context, native
languages were seen as “a means of social discipline, as a social unifier of nations, and as
a necessary and most important condition of successful economic and cultural development” (Davydov as quoted in Slezkine, 1994, p. 430). The use of native languages also
helped the Soviet government to quickly spread the “word of socialism,” demonstrate its
anti-imperialist vision in practice, and therefore gain trust in the “oppressed proletarians” across its culturally and linguistically diverse territory (Slezkine, 1994). In short,
korenizatsiia made Soviet power “seem indigenous rather than an external Russian
imperial imposition” (Martin, 2001, p. 74).
Implemented as a part of the Soviet indigenisation (korenizatsiia) policy in the 1920s
and 1930s, the support of indigenous languages was accompanied by a rapid spread of
mass education across the territory belonging to the Soviet Union. By the middle of the
1930s, native language schools were operating in all regions of the Soviet Union, and
in 1934 textbooks were being printed in 104 languages (Sovetkin, 1958, p. 11; see also
Silova, 2006). As a result of the Soviet “cultural revolution,” the number of children
attending schools rapidly increased, especially in the republics of Central Asia where
formal schooling was not available. During the first five years of Soviet rule, the number
of children enrolled in schools increased 15 fold in Turkmen SSR, 18 fold in Kyrgyz SSR,
39 fold in Uzbek SSR, 57 fold in Kazakh SSR, and 225 fold in Tajik SSR (Bogdanov, 1954,
p. 10). By the early 1950s, school enrolment reached 57 million people compared to only
8.1 million in pre-revolutionary Russia (Bogdanov, 1954, p. 3). At the same time, this
comprehensive system of ethnic stratification served as an effective mechanism for the
Soviet government to maintain social stability and control in a very complex multiethnic
society (Brubaker, 1994; Zaslavsky, 1997; Silova, 2006). As Brubaker (1994) explained,
it legitimised national diversity “in form,” but drained it in its content. The ultimate goal
was to replace the national content with socialist ideology as a unifying basis for all of the
national diversity.
By the 1950s, the Soviet indigenisation (korenizatsiia) policy shifted towards the
Russification policy, which aimed at “social and cultural unification” of all ethnic groups
on the basis of the Soviet Russian culture” (Khazanov, 1993, p. 183). Implemented under
the Soviet slogan of “merging the nations,” the Russification policy resulted in a drastic
decrease in the number of national units and the promotion of Russians as a nationality
in their own right (Slezkine, 1994). In the education sphere, the Russification policy led
to a rapid decline of the number of non-Russian languages of instruction in schools,
reaching 45 languages in the 1970s and 35 languages in the 1980s - just over half the
number of the languages offered by Soviet schools in the early 1930s (Anderson & Silver,
1984). Meanwhile, a continuous influx of Russian settlers into the territories of Soviet
republics necessitated the establishment of Russian language schools, which existed in
parallel to the schools for titular nationalities, providing autonomy and certain privileges
for Russian-speaking populations living outside of Russia, on the one hand, and establishing power structures to control titular nationalities, on the other.
The impact of Russification policies differed across the Soviet republics. In particular, the percentage of students studying in native languages fell to 52 % in Latvia and 47
% in Ukraine by 1989, while the percentage of students studying in the Russian language
increased to approximately 50 % in each republic respectively (see Table 1). By contrast,
Russification policies in Armenia were less rigid, with the percentage of students studying in the Armenian language declining to 80 % by 1989 and the percentage of students
studying in Russian increasing to 15 % only (see Table 1).
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
152
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
Such an uneven implementation of Russification policies across the Soviet republics could be explained by a variety of reasons, including the inadequacies of the Soviet
bureaucratic machine, “the scarcity of competent officials, the dearth of qualified teachers, and insufficient funding, in particular for schooling,” as well as other political and
geographical factors that compelled the Soviet government to enforce the Russification
policies with various degrees of intensity (Dowler, 2001 and Weeks, 2006 as cited in
Pavlenko, 2013, p. 656).
Table 1
Student distribution by language of instruction in secondary schools (1950s-1980s)
Republics/
1955-1956
1980-1981
1988-1989
1990-1991
Titular language
91.0 %
79.8 %
80.5 %
86.9 %
Russian
9.0 %
11.8 %
15.1 %
8.4 %
4.4 %
Successor states
Armenia
Minority language
Latvia
Titular language
67.0 %
55.9 %
52.4 %
Russian
33.0 %
44.1 %
47.6 %
Titular language
72.8 %
54.6 %
47.5 %
Russian
26.3 %
44.5 %
51.8 %
Minority language
0.9 %
0.9 %
0.7 %
Minority language
Ukraine
47.9 %
Source. Adapted from Pavlenko (2013), p. 660-661.
Although the official interpretation of the Russification policy did not completely
abandon the Leninist principle of unity through diversity, it was characterised by a shifting emphasis on cultivating a common Soviet identity, which would encompass - and
eventually assimilate - children of different nationalities under the slogans of “friendship of all people,” “interethnic equalisation,” and “internationalism” (Silova, 2006, p.
32). The development of a common Soviet identity primarily occurred through political socialisation of children, beginning as early as preschool activities and continuing
throughout secondary school and higher education. It ranged from official curricula
and school uniforms to the participation in political organisations. For example, Soviet
children were encouraged to engage in various political organisations that ensured their
socialist upbringing and a sense of belonging to a single organisation. At the elementary
school level (grades 1-3), children across all Soviet republics were sworn into oktiyabriyata or ‘little Octobrists’; at the primary school level (grades 4-8), they became pioneri
or ‘Young Pioneers’; and at the high school level (grades 9-10), they could finally become
komsomoltsy or Komsomol members. Children participated in these organisations in
mass numbers. For example, Moos (1967) notes that about 23 million university students and professionals served in the “Komsomol” rank, about 23 million school children
served as “Young Pioneers” and 15 million children were “Young Octobrists” in 1967
alone (p. 80-81).
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
153
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
The main purpose of these children and youth organisations was “to develop social
consciousness, loyalty to the Soviet regime, and the virtues of initiative, activism, discipline, and cooperation” (Matossian, 1968, p. 76). By becoming a part of these youth
organisations, children received symbolic accessories such as the pin (for little Octobrists
and Komsomol members) or the red scarf (for Pioneers) and they were expected to model
behaviours of a good student and future role model citizen (Silova, 2006; Kirschenbaum,
2001, Matossian, 1968). Rewards and recognition for participation in these organisations
were incentivised by the promise of greater likelihood of higher education admission,
better career opportunities, as well as everyday rewards. As DeWitt (1955) describes,
“After all, few pupils can resist the temptations of wearing the red scarf of a Pioneer if
it means 2 weeks of summer camp free, admission to clubs where all sorts of gadgets
can be observed and made, and admission to puppet shows and movies at half price”
(p. 42). Over time, such large-scale participation of children and youth in these political
organisations and activities was expected to homogenise children’s behaviours, actions,
and appearances, ultimately resulting in the formation of an ideal Soviet citizen.
In addition to political socialisation of children, the Soviet government also attempted
to socialise children into a common identity through temporal and spatial means.
Temporally, the Soviet curriculum blurred the link between “child” and “adult,” as well
as “play” and “work,” by introducing labour or labour-like activities into the curriculum
to encourage children’s “play” that mimicked the world of adult’s work (Kirschenbaum,
2002, pp. 122-123). Workshops and plots of land were attached to many schools and
children often went on excursions to observe the operation of nearby factories, power
plants, and mines (Matossian, 1968). While emphasising the social significance of both
mental and physical labour, the Soviet curriculum thus positioned children as active
participants in the building of the Soviet futures. Over the same period, children’s lives
(especially while attending school) were perfectly timed through the “‘seriation’ of successive activities” in each moment of time (Foucault, 1977, p. 160). This “discipline of the
minute” was clearly reflected in the Soviet schooling practices that required all schools
of a particular type (ranging from elementary schools to universities) and of a particular
grade level “to teach the same lessons from the same books with the same methods at the
same time” (Hamot, 1996 quoted in Silova, 2006, p. 40). The school timetable looked
practically identical across the Soviet republics, further synchronising children’s schooling experiences. Such an orchestrated administration of school time - encompassing
both education and afterschool activities - turned Soviet schools into “the ultimate learning machines for supervising, controlling, and hierarchizing of a Soviet child” (Silova,
2006, p. 41).
Finally, Soviet children were also socialised in terms of space and place. The Soviet
empire-building project prioritised the construction of common (often physically identical) children’s places—camps, playgrounds, schools, libraries, and kindergartens—
aiming to create a sense of common identity through the everyday occupation of these
particular places (de la Fe, 2013; Crowley & Reid, 2002). Representing the modernisation efforts of the Soviet state and linking childhood directly to the socialist concepts of
“progress,” “enlightenment,” and “inclusion,” these common spaces helped establish an
imagined community of Soviet children “no matter where in the empire a child resided”
(de la Fe, 2013, p. 35). Importantly, de la Fe (2013) notes that the Soviet discourses
of national self-determination and childhood spaces allowed “children in non-Russian
regions to understand their place within their respective territorial boundaries which
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
154
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
was both culturally distinctive and socially common with Soviet spaces, evoking feelings of belonging” to both their national territory and the larger multinational space of
USSR (p. 40). Combined, children’s everyday physical spaces (such as school buildings)
and broader geographical landscapes (both natural and cultural landscapes) served as
constituent facets of the old and powerful myth of the Soviet homeland. Bonding sociocultural identities to specific (national) spaces, the myth of the Soviet homeland thus
socialised children sociospatially as a part of the Soviet nation-building project (Silova
et al., 2012).
Taken together, these three-prong socialisation strategies – encompassing political,
temporal and spatial socialisation – placed children at the centre of the Soviet empirebuilding project, reconfiguring Soviet childhood and refashioning the Soviet empire
itself. Yet, as the present article will illustrate, these different socialisation strategies
were never static or uniform. Although articulated centrally in Moscow, these strategies were translated by education policymakers into different education patterns across
the Soviet republics and they were certainly experienced by individuals in multiple and
unpredictable ways (see Silova, Piattoeva, & Millei, 2018).
3. Exploring Childhood Socialisation Strategies
Through Textbook Analysis
To explore the social construction of Soviet childhood and nation(hood) – two distinct but
closely interrelated processes in the Soviet empire-building project – this article draws on
the analysis of early literacy textbooks as an example of the official interpretation of the
Soviet nationality policies in school texts. As Newman and Paasi (1998) explain, educational narratives found in school texts (including textbooks, atlases, poems, and posters)
provide an official “reading” of social norms, values, and symbols attached to them, forming a political space that extends state policies (and politics) into the seemingly apolitical
aspects of children’s everyday lives (Kallio & Häkli, 2011; see also Silova, Mead, Mun, &
Palandjian, 2014). While recognizing that children may read and interpret these textbooks
in different ways, it is nevertheless important to understand how the Soviet government
attempted to translate its vision of the Soviet future for a direct consumption by school
children. Even more interesting is the exploration of the ways in which this vision became
translated - both literally and figuratively - onto the pages of early literacy textbooks published in different languages on the territories of the Soviet republics.
While the examination of the nation and national identity in school textbooks has
generally tended to focus on the history or social studies textbooks (see, e.g., Janmaat,
2005; Schissler & Soysal, 2005; Michaels & Stevick, 2009), where children’s political
socialisation is more explicit, this study expands the focus to early literacy textbooks.
Building on our previous research on post-socialist childhoods, we further develop the
concept of “literacies of childhood” – “a set of discursive constructions that define what
it means to be a child, creating normative boundaries of how children conceive the realm
of possible actions for themselves and others” (Mead & Silova, 2013, p. 199). Literacies
of childhood are not necessarily about the traditional notions of literacy described as the
ability to read, write, and communicate. They are, first and foremost, about learning the
mundane and everyday ways through which children are expected to govern themselves
and each other.
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
155
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
For the purposes of these paper, these literacies encompass three distinct ways of
childhood socialisation, including political, temporal, and spatial socialisation. First,
political socialisation of childhood focuses on texts and images that directly discuss
Soviet political norms, values, and behaviours in relation to children and children’s lives,
simultaneously socialising them into numerous societal institutions and roles. Second,
temporal socialisation examines how the construction of the child (and empire) is premised upon particular epistemologies of time and its progression, paying particular attention to how children’s lives intertwine with adult worlds on the pages of the Soviet early
literacy textbooks (Mead & Silova, 2013). Third, sociospatial socialisation examines how
textbooks shape representations of children’s space by infusing the national space –
whether understood as the country’s borders, its geographic landscapes, or articulations
of homeland – with certain cultural, social, and national meanings (Mead & Silova, 2013;
see also Newman & Paasi, 1998).6
4. Literacies of Soviet Childhood: Visions
of Empire in the National Peripheries
In the following analysis we trace how discursive constructions of childhood and empire
were articulated centrally in Moscow and then translated into the textbooks published in
Armenia, Latvia, and Ukraine. We analyse each of the three types of literacies of Soviet
childhood, including political, temporal, and spatial socialisation of children.
4.1. Political Socialisation
As children begin learning the alphabet, they also learn to be political subjects. School
children across the Soviet Union – from the Baltics to the Caucasus – were politically
socialised as early as they began learning to read and write. Soviet early literacy textbooks
carried various messages about what it meant to be a Soviet child, including political
norms, values, and behaviours children were supposed to embody. These textbooks also
socialised children in various societal institutions and roles, aiming to construct an ideal
Soviet citizen. Perhaps one of the most visible signs of political socialisation reflected
in early literacy textbooks was through children’s participation in school-based political organisations such as Little Octobrists, Pioneers, and Komsomol members. Proudly
wearing their red star pins with the image of Lenin as a child (a pin worn by all children
admitted into the ranks), Little Octobrists appear in images that portray them studying at
school, helping elders, participating in parades, or standing in front of Lenin’s portraits
or statues. The texts accompanying these pictures remind children about the honour
and responsibility of becoming Little Octobrists. For example, a 1990 Russian textbook
includes an image of an induction ceremony into the organisation of Little Octobrists and
says: “On the day of Great October [Revolution] we became Little Octobrists. But before
that we were only students” (p. 89, emphasis added). Joining the ranks of the children’s
political organisation is equated with becoming a fully capable (political) member of the
society. A 1986 Ukrainian textbook further instructs children about their responsibilities
as Little Octobrists to “protect the Soviet homeland” as Lenin directed them. It further
says: “Learn to live like Lenin, and to love the great peoples like Lenin” (p. 103). In all
textbooks, children appear to receive the honour of becoming Little Octobrists with joy
and excitement, eagerly sharing the news with their friends and families.
6
See Appendix for more information on data sources and our textbook sample for each country.
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
156
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
Although the young readers of early literacy textbooks were only eligible to join
the ranks of Little Octobrists (based on their age), they learned about the next steps of
moving up the ladder of children’s participation in political life. For example, textbooks
contained many images of Pioneers, the next level of youth organisation for children
in grades 4-8, which was distinguished by wearing a red scarf. The appearance of the
induction ceremony into the Pioneer organisation meant to prepare children to strive
for membership to the next level so they too could receive the honour and recognition
symbolised through the red scarf. The honour of wearing the red scarf came with the
responsibility and expectation that a Pioneer must study well and always exhibit exemplary behaviour. As Pioneers, children were expected to continue carrying Lenin’s vision
forward. For example, a 1975 Latvian textbook shows an imagine of Young Pioneers putting flowers in front of Lenin’s statue in the centre of Riga and feeling proud that “Lenin
is always alive in their hearts,” teaching them to always strive for knowledge so that
they can become “real Leninists” (p. 94). In a 1984 Armenian textbook, a story describes
Samvel arriving home and telling his grandmother with great excitement that he had
become a Pioneer. In response, his grandmother suggests that he must work harder from
this point forward, to always be a disciplined and hardworking student (p. 81). The story
suggests that it is not enough to earn this recognition and that children must continue to
study hard and do good deeds for their communities.
References to Lenin as a role model appear throughout all Soviet textbooks. Pictures
of Lenin as a child accompany many texts, reminding young readers that they must be
hardworking and studious – just like Lenin. Textbooks remind children that they are
expected to follow Lenin’s famous command – “Learn, learn, learn!” – while respecting
every task they do both at school or at home. For example, the 1984 Armenian textbook
tells a story of Lenin as a great teacher who taught children to love their homeland and
be respectful. Entitled “Who is [he] looking at?”, the story is about a framed picture of
Lenin,7 which is hanging on the classroom wall. In this story, and many other similar stories in textbooks published across the Soviet republics, children are constantly reminded
that they are expected to be diligent, disciplined, and erudite learners and that they are
always watched:
On the classroom wall there is a picture of Lenin babi (Lenin grandfather).
Everyday with nice glances he looks at the students as if saying, ‘Study
well, you will become people for your fatherland.”
One day the children got into a big argument, “Lenin grandfather is looking
at us,” said Arpik and Soorik seated at the left side.
“No, he is looking at us,” said Shoghik and Yervant seated at the right side.
“Vay, maybe you can’t see, but he is directly looking at us,” insisted those
seated in the middle row. Comrade Tsoghik entered the room. Knowing
that the fight was about to start he said, “You are fighting for no reason,
children. Lenin grandfather is looking at all of us.” (p. 83)
What is striking is that the texts and images of Little Octobrists and Pioneers across
the different Soviet republics appear the same, with children frequently standing against
7
As seen in the image, the portrait of Lenin is “decorated” with devil ears’ by a child to whom
the aybenaran belonged. It is an important reminder of children’s everyday reactions and resistances to
official political socialisation efforts. Although not a part of this study, it is critical to examine how children
experienced political socialisation during their socialist childhoods. See more on this in Silova, Piattoeva,
and Millei (2018).
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
157
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
identical backdrops of red flags or portraits of Lenin or Marx, as well as wearing identical
school uniforms, red star pins, and red scarves. The uniformed look was coupled with
the expected standard of uniformed behaviour: at school, children were depicted to be
attentive and engaged in class instruction; they were taught to study well and have good
handwriting skills; and they were expected to always look clean and tidy. Once dressed
in school uniform, children were also expected to act and respond in homogenous ways,
which were cultivated both at school and home. When children arrived home from
school, for example, they were expected to help their parents with housework or their
siblings with school work. Overall, children’s participation in political youth organisations appeared to instil not only particular values and norms of behaviour, but also a
sense of belonging to a larger community that united children across the different Soviet
republics through common experiences and expectations.
In addition to these messages, children also encountered other role models and
learned values associated with their national homelands. For example, textbooks published in Russia feature texts about the famous Russian poet Aleksandr Pushkin and
occasionally include excerpts from Russian fairy-tales, which teach children about the
importance of caring for each other, working hard, and being humble. All of the textbooks include excerpts from Russian fairy-tales and the Ukrainian textbooks also transfer Russian texts on Pushkin. However, Armenian, Latvian, and Ukrainian textbooks also
include texts and images capturing their national poets and heroes, as well as national
folklore – embedding national sentiments and thus simultaneously initiating children
into national patriotic awareness – which are presented alongside texts transmitting
Soviet ideology. These nationally-oriented texts and images produce disruptions, opening spaces for developing particular national identities alongside the common Soviet
identity among children.
Set of Images 1. Political socialisation through children and youth organisation
Russia, 1990, p. 89
Russia, 1990, p. 42
Armenia, 1984, p. 46
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
158
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
Ukraine, 1986, p. 103
Latvia, 1984, p. 94
Armenia, 1984, pp. 82-83
4.2. Temporal socialisation
Most early literacy textbooks published in the USSR open with strikingly similar pages,
announcing the beginning of the children’s learning journey (Mead & Silova, 2013). The
first page of almost every book features either an image of a young schoolboy Lenin or
a portrait of adult Lenin, confidently staring ahead and reminding children about the
importance of learning. For example, a Ukrainian textbook (1990) features an image of
a young Lenin, holding his very own literacy primer, and the accompanying text saying:
“Bukvar - the beginning of all beginnings” (pp. 2-3). While children are clearly expected
to identify with Lenin as a young learner, the textbook also conveys an important message about the “beginnings” – “not only of the beginning of a child’s schooling or literacy,
but also indicating a much more profound process, concerning the whole life of the child”
(Mead & Silova, 2013, p. 205). So what kind of “beginning” do these early literacy textbooks envision for the Soviet child?
First and foremost, the textbooks introduce a Soviet construction of a linear
progression of time, which is derived from a larger cultural thesis ordering MarxistLeninist thought, that is, the modernity narrative of progress reflecting a steady march
to a more educated, politically rational, socially peaceful, and technologically advanced
world (Mead & Silova, 2013). In early literacy textbooks, this linear progression of
time is clearly visible in children’s advancement from “illiteracy” to “literacy,” from
“childhood” to “adulthood” - always moving forward and towards a strictly predetermined destination (Mead & Silova, 2013). While the first pages of the books signal the
beginning of literacy and the child’s holistic development toward a Soviet subjectivity,
the last pages of the textbooks announce the definite completion of this particular “literacy” mission, reaffirming children’s independence and their expected contributions
to building a Soviet future. For example, 1980 Russian textbook includes a poem titled
“Chitalochka” (Little reader), which suggests that with gaining literacy, the readers
also gained the freedom from the world of childhood dependency on adults: “How well
you can read! No need to bother mama, no need to go to grandma: “Read, please,
read!” ... No need to call out, no need to wait, it’s possible to simply take and read!” (p.
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
159
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
126). The child is thus “liberated – literate – with access to knowledge that can forever
be accrued” (Mead & Silova, 2013, p. 212).
The textbooks further explain that literacy opens the whole world to children. For
example, a 1990 Russian textbook tells children that they will “find the courage in their
favourite books to see all of the USSR and all of the world from the heights [of literacy]”
(p. 125). The same textbook also instructs children that literacy (and education more
generally) will help them become “hard-working citizens of [their] great homeland –
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (p. 1). The child’s progression from “illiteracy”
to “literacy” thus encompasses also political and social literacy, placing children at the
centre of Soviet campaigns of modernisation, urbanisation, and labour mobilisation.
The 1973 Armenian aybenaran, for example, illustrates how children acquire literacy by
helping each other climb on top of the letter blocks, envisioning – as they reach the top –
their futures as astronauts, artists, or writers who would contribute to the development
of their country (see image set 2). Textbooks also emphasize that children must love
(all) books, because they can guide children through the world. As the 1984 Armenian
aybenaran says, “for you it [the book] transforms a lighted path, it is your guide” (p. 92).
In fact, early literacy textbooks consistently equate learning to read with becoming productive citizens of the USSR, blurring the line between the “play” and “work,”
between “child” and “adult.” Kirschenbaum (2001) notes that such purposeful blurring of childhood and adulthood reflects Soviet government's efforts to “put children’s
interests first” in the name of the Soviet future, insisting that the life of the child should
revolve around “work rather than play” (p. 120). One of the ways to achieve this was by
redefining what was essentially labour or labour-like activities as something inherently
“interesting” to kids. In this context, Soviet children’s “play” could mimic the world of
adult’s work (as with children’s “building blocks”) or be labour, on a micro-scale, from
performing various chores around school and home to gathering berries to sewing doll’s
clothing (Kirschenbaum, 2001, pp. 122-123; see also Mead & Silova, 2013). These labourlike or actual labour activities are clearly represented in textbooks, portraying children
actively involved in cleaning their classrooms and school yards, helping adults to harvest
potatoes, or directing traffic through pretend play. In their earlier study on literacy primers in Latvia and Ukraine, Mead and Silova (2013) similarly note the images of children
engaged in such “socially useful labour” as harvesting potatoes, raking hay fields, planting trees, picking mushrooms, fixing bicycles, mending clothes, and cleaning schoolyards
(p. 213). In these images, children appear – both literally and figuratively – as “miniature adults, moving towards ‘correct’ understandings and habits” as they participate in
the construction of the Soviet future (Kirschenbaum, 2001, p. 117). As Mead and Silova
(2013) note, children are placed in “a temporal framework of dynamic forward progression” – by learning to read, they gain independence; through “play,” they prepare for the
activities and subjectivities of their adult lives; and through observing or participating in
real labour, they bear witness to the Soviet Union’s rapid progress (p. 214).
Yet, the linear progression of time – so central to the Soviet empire-building project
– is sometimes unexpectedly disrupted through subtle references to pre-modern cyclical
time. For example, all textbooks capture the changes of the nature’s seasons throughout
the year. While early portions of the books often feature imagery of the fall harvest, the
middle of the books include texts of snowy landscapes and winter holidays, followed by
the images of spring with birds returning and rain bringing blossoms. The books usually
end with the images of children stepping outside of schools into the summer landscapes,
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
160
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
playing in the fields, taking walks in forests, climbing mountains, or enjoying summer
vacation by the seaside. Interestingly, in many Armenian, Latvian, and Ukrainian textbooks (but not so much in Russian ones), nature becomes animated, with the smiling sun
greeting children as they step outside the school buildings. These flashbacks of seemingly pre-modern time, revealing nature-centred spiritualties and cyclical time, appear
in Soviet textbooks in subtle ways, surprisingly co-existing with the modern conceptions
of linear time (see Silova, forthcoming).
Set of Images 2. Temporal socialisation
Ukraine, 1990, pp. 10-11
Ukraine, 1986, p. 50
Armenia, 1973, inside cover (front)
Armenia, 1973, inside cover (back)
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
161
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
Russia, 1987, pp. 54-55
Russia, 1987, p. 16
Armenia, 1984, pp. 10-11
Latvia, 1984, p. 20
Russia, 1987, p. 65
4.3. Sociospatial socialisation
Sociospatial socialisation of children constituted one of the central domains of the Soviet
empire-building project, aiming to link national and cultural identities to specific geographies of Soviet republics, while at the same time developing a sense of belonging to the
entire USSR. In this context, educational narratives and images of space inhabited by
children reveal shifting possibilities of nationality and nationhood, constructing powerful
myths of their homeland(s). Perhaps one of the most frequently used images – appearing in some variations across different editions of the textbooks published in Moscow
– effectively captures the Soviet vision of “unity in diversity” by portraying children of
different nationalities (usually wearing traditional national costumes) standing in front
of the USSR map or waving red flags as they marvel the vast territory of their new homeland that stretches from the borders of Europe to Asia (see set of Images 3). The texts
accompanying these images describe the USSR as a homeland – “singular creation of the
peoples’ [plural] will” (1990, pp. 127) or “as the union of unbreakable Soviet Republics”
(1986, p. 190) – thus negating the more particularistic national(ist) meaning of the word.
Many textbooks include excerpts from the Soviet anthem to further reinforce the idea of
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
162
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
“unity in diversity” expressed through colourful images:
"Unbreakable union of free republics united forever by Great Rus’ [Velikaya Rus’].
Long live the singular creation of the peoples’ [narodov] will,
the mighty Soviet Union!
Be glorious, our free Fatherland [Otechestvo],
the reliable stronghold of friendly [druzhby] peoples!
The party of Lenin -- the power of our people leading us to the triumph
[torzhestvy] of communism!" (1986, Moscow, pp. 190-191)
More interesting, however, is the reference to a Great Rus, which carries pre-Soviet
Russian imperial connotations. In a 1986 book produced by Moscow’s main educational
publisher Prosveshcheniye (pp. 190-191), and in 1986 and 1990 textbooks published in
Kyiv (pp. 104-105; pp. 126-127), three highly similar versions of the same text appear, suggesting a direct transfer of ideas from Moscow to Kyiv. While the text appears to be quite
aligned with traditional Soviet discourses celebrating the Soviet Union as a polity for and
of the “friendly/united peoples” [druzhby narodov], a reference to a Great Rus competes
with the idealised narrative of the Soviet Union as a confederation of equal peoples. The
deliberate use of the noun “Rus’” [Русь] rather than “Russia” [Россия] is highly evocative.
The descriptor of a medieval Eastern Slavic proto-people and polity (the Kievan Rus) that
would eventually evolve into the “Great Russia” empire, Rus’ is a term that has deeply
imperial pre-Soviet connotations, referencing the glorious origin points of the later Russian
empire and its historiographical construction that likewise incorporated Belarusian and
Ukrainian national identities as the “White Russians” and “Little Russians” in particular. In a similar vein, both Ukrainian textbooks (1986, 1990) include texts and colourful
pictures of Moscow’s Red Square with a title “Moscow – the main city of our homeland”
(p. 54), emphasising the centrality of Russian language and culture in the Soviet nationbuilding project. Inclusion of such references in the literacy primers of Russia and Ukraine
undoubtedly cuts against the (idyllic) grain of Soviet internationalism, suggesting the particular endurance of pre-Soviet Russian national(ist) discourses and the maintenance of its
particular privileged position in the supposed non-hierarchy of Soviet peoples.
Meanwhile, the pictures and texts discussed above clearly capture the inherent tension in Soviet discourse on nations – one paradoxically reifying the common Soviet
nationhood and simultaneously fuelling national identities constructs in the hopes of
subsuming them. Inevitably, this tension points to the ability of language to be repurposed and imbued with new or different cultural or political meanings. This is exactly
what we see on the pages of textbooks published in Ukraine, Latvia, and Armenia. While
Ukrainian textbooks often directly “translate” ideas of Soviet nationhood from Russian
to Ukrainian texts, Latvian and Armenian textbooks take more liberty in modifying the
message. In particular, Latvian textbooks still contain images of multinational peoples
(e.g., kids wearing traditional costumes and dancing together), yet the map of the USSR
disappears. Children’s association with the USSR is further blurred in the accompanying
text, which definitively describes Latvia as their only homeland:
"The land where a person is born is called homeland. No matter where one
lives, he remembers his homeland just as he remembers his mother. There
is only one mother and motherland [homeland]. We have been born in
Latvia. It is a part of Soviet Union. The brotherhood of all Soviet children
calls the Soviet Union its Homeland." (Latvia, 1984, p. 100)
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
163
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
The text clearly states that Latvian children have only one homeland – a place
where they were born (Latvia) – even though it is officially a part of the Soviet Union.
Other texts about homeland lose their association with the Soviet Union altogether.
For example, a textbook published in 1984 includes a text about homeland, which is
accompanied by a picture of the Latvian map only, with a glaring omission of the USSR
in either visual or textual representations. Instead, the text highlights the beauty of
the Latvian landscapes, including its “beautiful hills,” “white birches,” “blue lakes,”
“vast meadows,” and “the Baltic sea washing the shores of the Latvian land (p. 91).
A similar rhetorical device is also used in Ukrainian and Armenian textbooks, which
offer detailed descriptions of their national landscapes, deliberately avoiding any mention of the USSR. For example, the 1990 Ukrainian textbook includes a poem by Taras
Shevchenko, “a great Ukrainian poet” who describes a beautiful [Ukrainian] nature,
including its “blue steppes,” “gentle breezes,” and “green willows” (p. 119). Another
poem from the 1986 Ukrainian textbook describes a journey of a young crane – a symbol of Ukraine – migrating back north for the summer. After its journey over “hundred
lands,” the crane is asked, “What is the best land of all?” The crane answers: “Nothing
is better than the native land!” Without directly referencing Ukraine, the poem is
remarkable for its powerful association of Ukraine as homeland, drawing on the symbolic imagery of a young crane’s longing for his Ukraine, his “land.”
Armenian textbooks are perhaps even more radical in disassociating their descriptions of homeland from the USSR. References to the USSR are very rare and usually
mentioned only in passing as, for example, a child planning a trip to Moscow and delivering a friend’s letter to her father. Instead, a 1984 textbook describes Yerevan, the
capital of Armenia as “one of the world’s oldest cities with beautiful buildings, cool
forests, and cold water fountains” (p. 64). Although the picture accompanying the text
features a Soviet red flag flying over the government building in the Republic Square,
the red flag is the only association with the USSR. The children in the same story talk
about Leninakan, the second largest city in Armenia named after Lenin, which they
describe as “an ancient city” (p. 64), pointing to Armenian national roots and ethnic
claim to their national space that long precedes Armenia’s incorporation into the USSR.
Similar to Latvian and Ukrainian texts, Armenian early literacy textbooks include
many texts and images linking “homeland” with the notion of ancestry – a line going
back through generations – describing how Armenians have been “born in or to” a
homeland that has existed seemingly forever. Typically, the natural beauty and bounty
of the Armenian homeland is portrayed through the images of grapes, wine, or Mount
Ararat. For example, all the Armenian aybenarans included in this study incorporate
numerous images of grapevines, either in detailed narratives about the importance of
wine or simply used as ornaments on the textbook pages. It is through the interaction
with natural landscapes – for example, grapes and wine of Armenia, wheat fields and
willows of Ukraine, or blue lakes and forests of Latvia – that the children in different
Soviet republics are invited to find a symbolic connection to their ancestors, despite the
efforts of the Soviet government to forge a common Soviet identity.
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
164
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
Set of Images 3. Sociospatial socialisation
Russia, 1990, p. 3;
caption reads: “Our
homeland - USSR”
Russia, 1990, p. 127;
the text is the Soviet
anthem
Ukraine, 1983, pp. 104-105; caption reads: “To
live is to serve our homeland. There is no more
beautiful homeland than ours.”
Russia, 1986, p. 190-191; the text is the Soviet anthem
Latvia, 1984, p. 100, p. 91
5. Conclusion
Historically, empires were built upon colonial institutional foundations and cultural
practices, which were used to maintain and reinforce the status quo. Compared to
Western models of colonisation, the Soviet empire-building project was distinct in its
rhetorical emphasis on “anti-imperialist” goals, which were reflected in the Soviet policies of granting national minorities the right to national self-determination and some
political autonomy within a context of building a common Soviet identity. At the same
time, however, the Soviet government drew inspiration from Western colonial projects,
using ethnography and statistics (e.g. census records) to draw the USSR’s internal borders and (re)order its multiple nationalities into distinct ethnonational territories, which
would ideally correspond to national languages and cultures (de la Fe, 2013). Across the
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
165
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
Soviet Union (although in various degrees), the empire-building project thus reflected
a tension between ethnocultural identity promotion, on the one hand, and assimilation
into the Soviet nationhood, on the other hand, resulting in many complex and contradictory outcomes in the Soviet peripheries. For some republics in Central Asia, for example, Soviet nationality policies facilitated the process of national identity consolidation
through modern schools and education in native languages, substantially increasing literacy levels among the population, while building the common Soviet identity. For others, like Latvia and Ukraine, Soviet nationality policies were more closely associated with
Russification policies, leading to the decline in the use of national languages, decrease
in enrolments in schools with native language education, and the overall linguistic and
cultural assimilation of national minorities. Yet still others (like Armenia, Azerbaijan,
and Georgia in the Caucasus) experienced a less rigid impact of Russification, perhaps
due to the particular relationship with and distance from the Soviet empire’s centre.
Caught in the middle of the Soviet empire-building project were children. Similar to
other (Western) empire-building projects, the Soviet Union placed children at the centre
of its ambitious nation-building project, linking the fate of the USSR, “if not practically
then metaphorically, to the state of its children” (Kirschenbaum, 2001, p. 43). In this context, the childhood socialisation through schooling became central to imagining – and
building – both the Soviet childhood and the Soviet future. Aiming to reflect the socialist principle of “unity in diversity,” childhood socialisation processes were three-prong,
encompassing political, temporal, and sociospatial socialisation of children through
school curriculum and everyday practices. While political socialisation of childhood
focused on infusing Soviet political norms, values, and behaviours into children’s everyday lives, temporal and sociospatial socialisation “located” children in a particular time
and space of the Soviet modernisation project. In terms of temporal childhood socialisation, the Soviet curriculum emphasised a strictly linear progression of time, blurring the
lines between childhood and adulthood and positioning children as active participants
in the building of the Soviet future. In terms of spatial socialisation, the Soviet empirebuilding project prioritised the construction – both physically and metaphorically – of
common children’s places, ranging from everyday spaces (e.g., playgrounds, schools,
libraries, and kindergartens) to symbolic spaces of their multinational Soviet homeland.
It is at the diffusion stage of these different childhood socialisation processes – that
is, their movement from the Soviet empire’s centre to its peripheries – where unexpected
contradictions and ruptures in the official Soviet discourses became clearly visible. In
addition to transmitting the Soviet political norms and values through school curriculum
and children’s participation in youth organisations, textbooks also taught children about
their national poets and heroes, national history, as well as national folklore. In this way,
socialisation into the Soviet patriotic awareness often proceeded alongside the development of children’s national (Armenian, Latvian, and Ukrainian) identities. Similarly,
while Soviet textbooks explicitly socialised children into a linear temporal framework,
defining their roles in building the Soviet future, the same textbooks also made subtle
references to pre-modern cyclical time that simultaneously distanced students from the
Soviet empire-building project. Finally, sociospatial socialisation of children through
textbooks further revealed the tension in the Soviet discourse on nations, simultaneously reifying the common Soviet nationhood and fuelling national identity constructs.
For example, while Russian textbooks explicitly referred to the vast territory of USSR as
a homeland, Armenian, Latvian, and Ukrainian texts seemed to lose – in various degrees
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
166
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
– association with the Soviet Union, instead emphasising the importance and particularity of their national landscapes and therefore defining homeland in national, rather than
supranational terms.
Taken together, these three-prong childhood socialisation strategies – political, temporal, and spatial – revealed an uneven terrain on which the foundations of the Soviet
empire had been built. Centrally articulated in Moscow, the Soviet nationality policies
were translated into different education patterns and childhood socialisation practices
across the Soviet republics, revealing multiple tensions and contradictions within the
official discourses. While Ukrainian textbooks seemed to “translate” the messages from
Moscow into early literacy textbooks in more direct ways, Armenian and Latvian textbooks attempted to overtly disassociate from the Soviet Russian narrative, placing a
stronger emphasis on ethnonational identity construction among children. Importantly,
the Russian textbooks focused almost exclusively on forging the Soviet identity, ultimately resulting in a much weaker focus on Russian identity. As a result, Russian textbooks appeared imperial in content, with the childhood socialisation strategies geared
more towards the Soviet imperial identity construction rather than a Russian or a multinational one (see also Piattoeva, 2010).
Despite its all-encompassing nature, the Soviet empire-building project had left sufficient space for the national cultures and languages to survive in different Soviet republics. Remarkably, this cultural diversity was preserved not only in oral traditions, but also
through mainstream schooling (including official school textbooks), further reinforcing
the multiplicity of pre-Soviet identities and ultimately failing to unite the Soviet peoples
in all of their diversity. In this respect, as Roberts (2014) rightfully noted, “the Soviet
empire fell victim to its own success” (p. 298). As much as early literacy textbooks were
designed to transmit and maintain the empire’s vision for the “bright Soviet future,” these
same textbooks also worked to destabilise it. It is this fluidity of the Soviet childhood
socialisation processes that opened spaces for unexpected contradictions and ruptures to
emerge, reconfiguring childhoods and refashioning the future of the Soviet empire itself.
6. Appendix
The empirical data in this study is comprised of 15 early literacy textbooks, which were
published in Russia (as the Soviet empire’s centre) and its three peripheries of Armenia,
Latvia, and Ukraine. All textbooks were approved by the Ministries of Education in
respective republics and published between the periods of 1940-1990. The textbooks
published in Russia were used not only in the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, but also
in schools for Russian-language speakers across the Soviet Union. Thus, children attending Russian language schools in different Soviet republics used the same textbooks,
while children attending schools for titular nationalities learned from textbooks written
and published in their own republics. The sample of textbooks from the four republics
covers an expansive and diverse space, reflecting not only unique geographical position
and national symbolism of each republic, but also different degree of engagement with
the Soviet nationality policies (e.g., Latvian and Ukraine being affected the most by the
Russification policies). Studying the social and cultural construction of Soviet childhood
and empire in early literacy textbooks of these countries thus offers a rich comparison,
revealing interesting continuities, contrasts, and similarities. Textbook analysis drew
on a purposefully broad, interpretive framework, which allowed us to pursue a detailed
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
167
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
qualitative analysis of the messages, ideas, and images through critical discourse analysis, making inferences into what the books communicate to their readers and how readers may interpret and experience the texts.
Table 2
Soviet textbook sample (Armenia, Latvia, Russia, and Ukraine)
No.
Date
Authors
Title
Publisher
Armenian textbooks
1
1973
A. Der Krikoryan
Aybenaran [alphabet book]
Yerevan: Polykrafkombinat
2
1984
A. Der Krikoryan
Aybenaran [alphabet book]
Yerevan: Koynavor
Dbakroutyan Dbaran
3
1988
A. Der Krikoryan
Arevik Aybenaran [Arevik alphabet book]
Yerevan: Koynavor
Dbakroutyan Dbaran
Latvian textbooks
4
1950
Ozolins, Ed.
Ābece: Latviesu valoda krievu
skolam [ABC for Russian
schools]
Riga: Latvijas Valsts
Izdevnieciba
5
1955
Lubaniete, Z., Berzaja, I., Vuskalne, L.
Ābece 1. klasei [ABC for the 1st
grade]
Riga: Latvijas Valsts
Izdevnieciba
6
1965
Lubaniete, Z., Berzaja, I., Ramsa, A.,
Vuskalne, L.
Ābece 1. klasei [ABC for the 1st
grade]
Riga: Latvijas Valsts
Izdevnieciba
7
1980
Karule, A., Kauce, A.
Ābece [ABC]
Riga: Latvijas PSR
Izglitibas Ministrija
8
1984
O. Nesterovs,
Ābece 1. klasei [ABC for the 1st
grade]
Riga: Zvaigzne
Ābece: Macibu gramata
Riga: Zvaigzne
Cпутник букварь [Sputnik
bukvar]
Moscow:
Букварь [Bukvar]
Moscow:
J. Osmanis
9
1987
Teivans, E.
Russian textbooks
10
11
1980
1982
L. Hazarov
V.G. Goretskiy,
V.A. Kiriushkin,
Prosveshcheniye
Prosveshcheniye
A.F. Shanko
12
1986, 1987
V.G. Goretskiy,
Aзбукa [Azbuk]
V.A. Kiriushkin,
Moscow:
Prosveshcheniye
A.F. Shanko
13
1990
V.G. Goretskiy,
V.A. Kiriushkin,
Aзбукa [ABC]
Moscow:
Prosveshcheniye
A.F. Shanko
(See next page –>)
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
168
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
No.
Date
Authors
Title
Publisher
Букварь [Bukvar]
Kyiv: Radyanska
Ukrainian textbooks
14
1986 (Soviet
N.S. Vashulenko,
Ukrainian)
A.H. Matveyeva,
Shkola
L.K. Nazorova,
N.F. Skripchenko
15
1990 (Soviet
Ukrainian)
N.S. Vashulenko,
A.H. Matveyeva,
Букварь [Bukvar]
Kyiv: Radyanska
Shkola (Kyiv)
L.K. Nazorova,
N.F. Skripchenko
7. References
Anderson, B. A. & Silver, B. D. (1984). Equality, efficiency, and politics in Soviet bilingual
education policy: 1934–1980. American Political Science Review, 78, 1019–1039.
Applebaum, R. (2015). The friendship project: Socialist internationalism in the Soviet
Union and Czechoslovakia in the 1950s and 1960s. Slavic Review, 74(3), 484-507.
Barkey, K. & Von Hagen, M. (1997). Conclusion. In K. Barkey & M. Von Hagen (Eds.),
After empire multiethnic societies and nation-building: the Soviet Union and the
Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires (pp.181-191). Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Bogdanov, I.M. (1954). Statistika shkolngo obrazovaniia (Statistics of school education).
Moscow, Russia: State Statistical Publishing.
Brubaker, R. (1994). Nationhood and the national question in the Soviet Union and postSoviet Eurasia: An institutionalist account. Theory and Society, 23(1), 47-78.
Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed nationhood and the national question in the
new Europe. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London, UK: Routledge.
Burman, E. (2008). Developments: Child, image, nation. London, UK: BrunnerRoutledge.
Crowley, D. & Reid, S. E. (2002). Socialist spaces of everyday life in the Eastern bloc.
New York: Berg Press.
DeWitt, N. (1955). Soviet professional manpower: Its education, training, and supply.
Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
Fe, L. de la (2013). Empire’s children: Soviet childhood in the age of revolution (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1922&context=etd
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
169
Soviet Empire, Childhood, and Education
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Gorenburg, D. (2006). Soviet nationalities policy and assimilation. In D. Arel & B. A.
Ruble (Eds.), Rebounding identities: The politics of identity in Russia and Ukraine
(pp. 273-303). Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson centre Press.
Janmaat, J.G. (2005). Ethnic and civic conceptions of the nation in Ukraine’s history
textbooks. European Education, 37(3), 20-37.
Kallio, K.P. & Häkli, J. (2011). Are there politics in childhood? Space and Polity, 15(1),
21-34.
Karklins, R. (1986). Ethnic relations in the USSR: the perspective from below. Boston:
Allen & Unwin.
Kelly, C. (2008). Defending children’s rights, “In defense of peace”: Children and Soviet
cultural diplomacy. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 9(4),
711–746.
Khazanov, A. (1993). Ethnicity, nationalism, and interethnic relations in the former Soviet
Union. The National Council for Soviet and East European Research. Retrieved
from https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1993-807-05-Khazanov.pdf
Kirschenbaum, L. (2001). Small comrades: revolutionizing childhood in Soviet Russia,
1917-1932. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Matossian, M. K. (1968). Impact of Soviet policies in Armenia. Leiden, Netherlands:E.J.
Brill.
Martin, T.D. (2001). Affirmative action Empire: Nations and nationalism in the Soviet
Union, 1923-1938, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Mead, M.A. & Silova, I. (2013) Literacies of (post)socialist childhood: Alternative
readings of socialist upbringings and neoliberal regimes, Globalization, Societies,
Education, 11(2), 194-222.
Michaels, D.L. & Stevick, E.D. (2009). Europeanization in the ‘other’ Europe: Writing
the nation into ‘Europe’ education in Slovakia and Estonia. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 41(2), 225-245.
Millei, Z., Silova, I., & Piattoeva, N. (2018). Towards decolonizing childhood and
knowledge production. In I. Silova, N. Piattoeva, & Z. Millei (Eds.), Childhood and
schooling in (post)socialist societies: Memories of everyday life. (pp. 231-256).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Moos, E. (1967). Soviet education achievement and goals. New York, NY: National
Council of American-Soviet Friendship.
Newman, D. & Paasi, A. (1998) Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: boundary
narratives in political geography, Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 186-207.
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
170
Iveta Silova & Garine Palandjian
Pavlenko, A. (2013). Language management in the Russian Empire, Soviet Union, and
post-Soviet Countries. In R. Bayley, R. Cameron, & C. Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of sociolinguistics. (pp. 651-679). New York: Oxford University Press.
Piattoeva, N. (2010). Citizenship education policies and the state Russia and Finland a
comparative perspective. (Doctoral Dissertation) University of Tampere, Finland.
Pomfret, D. M. (2016). Youth and empire: trans-colonial childhoods in British and
French Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Roberts, J. A. (2014). The anti-imperialist empire: Soviet nationality policies under
Brezhnev. (Doctoral Dissertation). West Virginia University, West Virginia.
Schissler, H. & Soysal, Y.N. (2005) The nation, Europe, and the world: textbooks and
curricula in transition. New York: Berghahn Books.
Silver, B. (1974). Social mobilization and the Russification of Soviet nationalities. The
American Political Science Review, 68(1), 45-66.
Silova, I. (forthcoming). Towards a wonderland of comparative education. Comparative
Education.
Silova, I. (2006). From sites of occupation to symbols of multiculturalism.
Reconceptualizing minority education in post-Soviet Latvia. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Silova, I., Mead, M., Mun, O. & Palandjian, G. (2014). Pedagogies of space: (Re)imagining
nation and childhood in post-Soviet states. Global Studies of Childhood, 4(3), 195209.
Slezkine, Y. (1994). The USSR as communal apartment, or how a socialist state promoted
ethnic particularism. Slavic Review, 53(2), 414-452.
Sovetkin, F. F. (1958). National schools in Russian Federation of the 40 years. Moscow:
Academy of Science.
Suny, R. G. (1993). The revenge of the past: nationalism, revolution, and the collapse of
the Soviet Union. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Suny, R. G. (1997). The Russian Empire. In K. Barkey & M. Von Hagen, (Eds.), After
empire: Multiethnic societies and nation-building. (pp. 142-154) Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Zaslavsky, V. (1997). The Soviet Union. In K. Barkey & M. Von Hagen, (Eds.), After
empire: Multiethnic societies and nation-building. (pp. 73-98) Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Revista Española de Educación Comparada. ISSN 2174-5382
núm. 31 (enero-junio 2018), pp. 147-171
doi:10.5944/reec.31.2018.21592
171