Search
In-Person Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Category
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Affiliate Organization
Search Tips
Sponsors
About ASEEES
Code of Conduct Policy
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
Session Submission Type: Roundtable
Arguably, most historians have always been attracted by the ideals of objectivity and political neutrality. In the post-WWII decades, front-rank historiography in the West overcame the most direct forms of politicization and became a relatively autonomous “field” of intellectual and social practices. In the 1960s and 1970s, historiography’s relative autonomy came to be de facto recognized by the authorities in the Soviet-controlled countries as well. To be sure, it was far more limited and uncertain there. But in the post-truth age, academic freedoms, including the freedom of history, have been challenged by the connected forces of populism, neo-authoritarianism, neoliberalism, postmodernism, and the new media. This is a global phenomenon, of which Putin’s Russia is an extreme example. Yet not all Soviet and post-Soviet Russian historians were and are involved in the “collaboration with Vaal.” A variety of strategies was and is currently being used by historians to reduce the impact of “late totalitarianism” and neo-authoritarianism on their work. The round-table participants will discuss those strategies and the historians’ motivation to collaborate or not with the dictatorial regimes. We will explore the specificity of Russian historiography’s current intellectual and political situation compared to the Soviet period, assess the degree of the historians’ support of Putinism, and discuss the methodological implications of protecting the autonomy of historical research. The existing research very unevenly covers these topics. The round-table format allows for considering them in a broad chronological framework and formulating questions for further study.