The Strange Case of Soviet Sociology: A Goffmanian Analysis of a Failed Discipline

History of the Soviet sociological movement is an intellectual puzzle. Sociology of science routinely identifies success in academic world with gaining intellectual recognition (Mertonian version) or boosting credit through manufacture of “facts” (constructivist version). Soviet sociology enjoyed enormous popularity at the time of its emergence (1960s), survived political prosecutions, and continued its expansion after Perestroika with its leaders attaining status of disciplinary cult figures. A commemorative tradition developed with most prominent figures leaving autobiographies. A whole industry of hagiographic literature emerged. All evidence of success was present; at the same time, Soviet sociology left no intellectual legacy: neither theories nor empirical findings from the Soviet times are circulating today, the only book from this period still in press and widely cited is a methods textbook (by Yadov), and authority of its leaders has been never translated in international space. This talk will try to explain political hardships of Soviet sociology, the past and present admiration for its leaders, and oblivion of substantive results of their work by applying a concept of “dramaturgical formation” inspired by Goffman’s work. Any research deals with secrets, but these secrets can belong to different types: some of them are natural, while others are social, involving reflexive attempts to conceal. In contrast to Western sociology, Soviet sociologists dealt with the second type of secrets, unpleasant facts about Soviet reality revealing of which the Party attempted to suppress or at least force away from the public space. Disclosure of such secrets required moral, rather than intellectual virtue. Social science were in an especially favorable position for doing this job as the Marxist regime legitimated itself as based on “scientific understanding of society”. That made it especially vulnerable for criticisms from the Academia, which explains both sociology’s success in institutionalization, repressions, and recognition in absence of intellectual achievement.