Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
234
result(s) for
"Fitzpatrick, Sheila."
Sort by:
Writing the Stalin era : Sheila Fitzpatrick and Soviet historiography
\"This book weaves together elements of biography, historiography, and historical writing to explore the writings and legacy of Sheila Fitzpatrick, the University of Chicago's eminent scholar of Soviet history. It begins with essays that examine Fitzpatrick's contribution to her field and concludes with reminiscences about her life and career so far written by friends, family members, colleagues, and students. The heart of the book is a collection of original articles written by some of Fitzpatrick's students. These articles address subjects ranging from Kazakh resettlement under Stalin to the self-fashioning of scientists under Khrushchev, from state practices of terror to cultural and gender politics, showcasing both diverse and shared elements in the work of this scholar's protâegâes\"--Provided by publisher.
Book
Revisionismus: Elemente, Ursprünge und Wirkungen der Debatte um den Stalinismus „von unten
In the autumn of 1986 Sheila Fitzpatrick sought to bring about a double paradigm shift in academic research on Stalinism. The social sciences were supposed to be succeeded by history, while the concept of totalitarianism was to be replaced by a social historical approach that claimed to understand Stalinism 'from below'. Instead of focusing on ideology, repression, and the state, Fitzpatrick inquired into the actual society, its subaltern strata and upward mobility, describing her agenda as 'revisionism'. Her essay New Perspectives on Stalinism in The Russian Review caused an ill-fated and highly emotional debate which became known as the controversy over revisionism. Historians of Stalinist politics, above all Peter Kenez, responded to Fitzpatrick by stressing how important it is to understand the Stalinist terror that came 'from above' for anyone wishing fully to comprehend the Soviet Union of the 1930s. This article aims to historicize the controversy over revisionism, its origins and outcomes in order to systematize assumptions, questions and arguments about the research on Stalinism which culminated in and emerged from the dispute.
Journal Article
Revisionismus
In the autumn of 1986 Sheila Fitzpatrick sought to bring about a double paradigm shift in academic research on Stalinism. The social sciences were supposed to be succeeded by history, while the concept of totalitarianism was to be replaced by a social historical approach that claimed to understand Stalinism ‘from below’. Instead of focusing on ideology, repression, and the state, Fitzpatrick inquired into the actual society, its subaltern strata and upward mobility, describing her agenda as ‘revisionism’. Her essay New Perspectives on Stalinism in The Russian Review caused an ill-fated and highly emotional debate which became known as the controversy over revisionism. Historians of Stalinist politics, above all Peter Kenez, responded to Fitzpatrick by stressing how important it is to understand the Stalinist terror that came ‘from above’ for anyone wishing fully to comprehend the Soviet Union of the 1930s. This article aims to historicize the controversy over revisionism, its origins and outcomes in order to systematize assumptions, questions and arguments about the research on Stalinism which culminated in and emerged from the dispute.
Journal Article
Revisionismus
In the autumn of 1986 Sheila Fitzpatrick sought to bring about a double paradigm shift in academic research on Stalinism. The social sciences were supposed to be succeeded by history, while the concept of totalitarianism was to be replaced by a social historical approach that claimed to understand Stalinism ‘from below’. Instead of focusing on ideology, repression, and the state, Fitzpatrick inquired into the actual society, its subaltern strata and upward mobility, describing her agenda as ‘revisionism’. Her essay New Perspectives on Stalinism in The Russian Review caused an ill-fated and highly emotional debate which became known as the controversy over revisionism. Historians of Stalinist politics, above all Peter Kenez, responded to Fitzpatrick by stressing how important it is to understand the Stalinist terror that came ‘from above’ for anyone wishing fully to comprehend the Soviet Union of the 1930s. This article aims to historicize the controversy over revisionism, its origins and outcomes in order to systematize assumptions, questions and arguments about the research on Stalinism which culminated in and emerged from the dispute.
Journal Article
HOW UNCLE JOE MANAGED HIS HENCHMEN
She maintains, further, that the idea of the Kremlin power-holders as a team, with the co-operation and give-and-take that presupposes, helps to explain why there was no dangerous power vacuum, either during Lenin's final illness or after [STALIN]'s death. With a slight wobble on Stalin's part after the German invasion of 1941, the team held together and carried on. Even if she takes her central argument too far, [SHEILA FITZPATRICK]'s book offers a salutary corrective. The West tends to view Russian leaders - from Ivan the Terrible to Vladimir Putin - as lone and largely malevolent tsars. If even Stalin was less of an autocrat than has generally been believed, and if - as the archives now suggest - Gorbachev's leadership was far more transactional and contested than it appeared, might it not be time to stop equating modern Russian leaders with tsars, and consider the constraints on their power instead.
Newspaper Article
