Science and academic research in Soviet Karelia: the history of the Karelian research institute (1930-37)

In general, the activities of the ethnography and linguistics section did not undergo major changes with the new direction. The section continued with a broad thematic plan where the various aspects of the folklore, traditions and languages of the peoples of Karelia were covered. The research group dedicated to the languages was the one that registered more changes. While the Finnish language was the protagonist between 1931 and 1935, with the new direction and the well-known controversy between the Finnish and Karelian languages, the second one was consolidated as the national language of Karelia. Between 1936 and 1938, most of the research in this field was focused on the Karelian language, while Finnish was relegated to the background. In other research groups the differences are practically imperceptible between the old and the new direction. The folklore group continued to collect epics and traditional stories, while the ethnography and linguistics group followed the thread of their previous research. Ibid., f. 1, op. 3, d. 222, fol. 2-4.

In short, in the thematic plans of 1936 and 1937 that we have been able to study, two points stand out above others: the project of elaborating a general history of Karelia and the impulse to the Karelian language to the detriment of Finnish. The introduction of these two topics in the research plans responds to political reasons of great priority of the new direction of the centre. The `coup' of Moscow and Leningrad in 1935 was caused by the great campaign against `bourgeois nationalism.' The `Red Finns' were accused of promoting that nationalism by putting the security of the USSR at risk. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsial'no-politicheskoi istorii (RGASPI), f. 495, op. 16, d. 72, fol. 4-7. It is not by chance, therefore, that one of the chapters of the essay prepared by the KNII with the new leadership dedicated a chapter to this issue. Another of the great accusations was that of exaggerating the `Finnish' character of Karelia, more specifically, overrepresenting the Finns in the administration or with the excessive use of Finnish in the public sphere. Therefore, the departure of the old republican leadership implied in turn the progressive decline of the Finnish language as the national language. The incorporation of these two topics in the research plans gives a glimpse of the political significance that the new rulers attributed to the KNII.

After a year of elaboration, the reorganisation of the institute came with a decree of the Sovnarkom of Karelia on January 11, 1937. The decree included a fierce criticism of the history of the centre based on arguments substantially different from those of the October 1935 meeting. The decree pointed out that, despite the intentions of the old leaders to resolve the main issues of the economy and culture, the centre was unable to resolve “a single one” of those issues because of its own structure, which led to the dispersion of its forces. Thus, the Sovnarkom stated that the institute should stop being organised as a complex, since its variety of specializations prevented the centre from being able to devote itself to the problems of Karelian culture. In fact, this assertion implied that the new republican leadership did not count on the KNII except for the study and culture of Karelia, and discarded the previous idea that the KNII could play a central role in the material aspect of the `socialist construction.'

The core of the decree was the announcement of the reorganisation of the KNII and its conversion into the Karelian Research Institute of Culture (Karel'skii nauchno- issledovatel'skii institut kul'tury), whose activity would be limited to linguistics, history, archaeology, folklore and ethnography. The sections that did not belong to the humanities were handed over to other institutions and departments of the republican government. The agricultural section and its experimental stations, for example, became part of the Karelian Narkomzem (People's Commissariat for Agriculture). Other facilities such as the scientific library and the publishing sector were reorganised and eventually eliminated. NA KNTs RAN, f. 1, op. 3, d. 221, fol. 9-10.

The reorganisation meant the dissolution of the KNII as it was thought by the leadership of the `Red Finns' in the early 1930s. The years 1936 and 1937 show that the new leadership of the centre and the republic was born from the denial of the work of the old leaders, although it cannot be said that they were against the idea of academic research in the service of the `socialist construction.' With the restructuring, a large part of science served in government departments without the intermediation of an institute. Meanwhile, the KNII dedicated itself solely to the cultural sphere, an idea diametrically opposed to the original.

Conclusions

During its six years of existence, between 1931 and 1936, the KNII was the epicentre of science in the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Karelia. The `Red Finns,' at the head of the republic since the early 1920s, considered that, to face the demands of academic knowledge of the First Five-Year Plan, it was necessary to create an institute that put science `at the service of the socialist construction.' Despite its short life, the history of the centre testifies that this conception of science and research was central to all its activities.

By its own structure, the KNII tried to respond to all the scientific needs of the Stalinist modernisation project in the northern periphery. For this reason, the first activities of the institute were not only focused on the recognition of Karelia's surroundings, but also on the keys to Stalinist modernisation. The distinctive feature of this modernisation was the will to transform all the aspects of the material and ideal reality. According to Leninist thinking, the core of this transformation was a new form of production. The sections of agriculture or forestry, for example, were devoted to studying how to implement these new forms of organising economic activity. On the other hand, the humanities within the KNII were dedicated to the ideal facet of modernisation within the framework of `cultural construction.' The clearest examples are the celebrations of 1935, where the republican government, with the collaboration of the KNII, tried to build new subjectivities, values and ideas through public ceremonies.

The optimism about the capabilities of science in socialist transformation gradually evaporated after 1935. The change in the centre's direction was accompanied by a profound criticism of the institute's activity since its foundation. According to the new leadership, the institute had not been able to meet the needs of the `socialist construction' in Karelia. However, its early work does not seem to corroborate this statement. The origins of the criticism respond to two main factors. On the one hand, behind the critique lies the denial of the work of a direction vetoed because of its supposed relationship to Finnish nationalism. On the other hand, behind these accusations is the very nature of the `socialist construction,' which far from being a historical period as Stalinism believed, was a political myth of an extraordinarily complex nature.

The myth was based on the belief that the USSR, thanks to the leadership of the Party and accompanied by its proletariat, was heading towards a classless society and the infallible `Marxist-Leninist science' dictated the steps in that transition. The disappointments in that transition process, the poor economic results harvested by Karelia during the Second Five Year Plan, Baron, Soviet Kuveliu, 170. for example, could not be explained under the Leninist viewpoint in any other way than by the incorrect application of that `science.' In conclusion, the overestimation of the capabilities of science in the process of `constructing socialism,' together with the regime's inability to question its dogmas, condemned the KNII to disappear.

List of secondary sources

Baron, N. Soviet Karelia: Politics, Planning and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1920--1939 / N. Baron. -- London : Routledge, 2007. -- 352 p.

Golubev, A. The Search for a Socialist El Dorado : Finnish Immigration to Soviet Karelia from the United States and Canada in the 1930s / A. Golubev, I. Takala. -- East Lansing : Michigan State University Press, 2014. -- XVIII, 236 p.

Афанасьева, А. И. Создание советской национальной автономии и некоторые вопросы языкового строительства в Советской Карелии (1920--

1944 гг.) / А. И. Афанасьева / / Вопросы истории Европейского Севера : (история Великого Октября на Северо-Западе России) : межвуз. сб. -- Петрозаводск : Петрозаводский государственный университет, 1987. -- С. 49--66.

Организация науки в первые годы Советской власти (1917--1925) : сборник документов / отв. ред. К. В. Островитянов. -- Ленинград : Наука, 1968. -- 419 с.

Перчёнок, Ф. Ф. «Дело Академии наук» и «великий перелом» в советской науке / Ф. Ф. Перчёнок // Трагические судьбы : репрессированные ученые Академии наук СССР / отв. ред. В. А. Куманев. -- Москва : Наука, 1995. -- С. 201--235.

Сталин и Каганович. Переписка. 1931--1936 / сост.: О. В. Хлевнюк [и др.]. --Москва : РОССПЭН, 2001. -- 797 с.

Такала, И. «Дело Гюллинга -- Ровио» / И. Такала / / Их называли КР : репрессии в Карелии 20--30-х годов / сост. А. М. Цыганков. -- Петрозаводск : Карелия, 1992. -- С. 34-73.

Титов, А. Ф. Карельский научный центр Российской академии наук : 1946-2016 гг. / А. Ф. Титов, Ю. А. Савватеев. -- Петрозаводск : КНЦ РАН, 2016. -- 246 с.

Филимончик, С. Н. Роль научно-исследовательских институтов Карелии в развитии гуманитарных наук в 1930-е годы / С. Н. Филимончик / / Труды Карельского научного центра Российской академии наук. Сер. «Гуманитарные исследования», вып.1. -- 2010. -- № 4. -- C. 103-114. -- URL: http://illhportal.krc.karelia.ru/publ.php?id=5673&plang=r (12.12.2010).

Филимончик, С. Н. Проведение школьных реформ в Карелии в 1920-30е годы / С. Н. Филимончик // Известия Волгоградского государственного технического университета. Сер. «Проблемы социально-гуманитарного знания». -- 2013. -- № 9. -- С. 172-178. -- URL: www.vstu.ru/ uploadiblok/files / izvestiya/archive /6/2013-09.pdf (12.12.2020).

Филимончик, С. Н. Развитие науки в Советской Карелии в 1920-1930-е гг. / С. Н. Филимончик. -- Петрозаводск : Издательство ПетрГУ, 2014. -- 75 с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru