Suchergebnisse

The relevance of sociological theory for explaining the recent dramatic changes in Eastern Europe is at hand. The impact of the downfall of communism has been compared with those Great Transformations along which sociology evolved as a science of crisis par excellence (Habermas). The actual elaboration of a sociological theory of post-communist transformation and its relation to East European studies is, nevertheless, anything but clear. The unexpected collapse of socialism was perceived as a failure of prognosis and led to self-critical debates in all social science disciplines. In this rethinking its basic concepts, sociology is exposed to pressure from different sides - above all from the polemic launched with the surprising revival of the theory of totalitarianism against the ,,liberalist social sciences across the board. Influential historians like Robert Pipes, Martin Malia, Robert Conquest, and Francois Furet followed by sociologists from Robert Nisbet to Seymour Lipset hold the fatal influence exerted by social science concepts on Eastern European and Soviet Studies during the last decades responsible for the whole intellectual disaster in Western Academe which became apparent after 1989. These approaches, as the neo-totalitarian accusation runs, elevated Soviet socialism to a modernization strategy and conceded a reform capacity which, in fact, was not available. Target of this critique are all attempts of a social history from below, sociological theories of action and especially the positivist illusion of modernization theory. Blinded by political motives, it is said, the insights of (neo-)totalitarianism theory into the inevitable collapse of communism were dismissed. In order to correctly draw the lines in the controversies between neototalitarianism theory and the social science approach, it is helpful to follow them along the changing career of the concept of totalitarianism thereby reconstructing the sociological arguments involved in the current discussion on the disintegration of socialist societies. On this line it will be argued (section 2), that the crisis of the classic theory of totalitarianism and the social science approach in Soviet studies did not follow from a politically motivated revisionism since the 1960s and 1970s. Analysing the socialist societies after 1945 was shaped from the very beginning by sociological, political science and economic models, which contrasted with fundamental assumptions of the classic concept of totalitarianism (section 3). The findings generated by this type of research as well as its limits are revealed when it comes to explaining the disintegration of Soviet socialism. The neo-totalitarianist's objection is correct that ranging socialism in an evolutionary scheme of ascending forms of society was problematic. This construction seems highly inadequate in view of the postcommunist crises and regressions (section 4). On the other hand, a coherent and self-reliant neo-totalitarianism theory is not visible (section 5). Instead the research on Eastern Europe after 1989 has seen an explosive growth of the social science approach in the course of which many revisionist theorems have been refuted, modified or confirmed. Nevertheless, the wave of social science theories entering the post-communist studies does not imply a way back to the golden age of classic modernization theory. The lesson to be learned from (neo-)totalitarianism theory concerns the stress it lays on domination and its specific irrationalities, variables which were indeed neglected by mainstream sociology and, after the Soviet breakdown, are ignored by the liberalist optimism of neoclassic reform programmes. The drama of the post-communist crises reminds us that there are no hidden hands and no evolutionary universals which would lead, quasi automatically, to modernity. On the other hand, the lesson to be learned from the social science approach is that even the most total totalitarianism did not result from a logic of history, but from certain constellations of interests, reciprocities between rulers and ruled, institutions of administration and value commitments, etc. which are quite accessible to a reconstruction in sociological terms.

An exploration of recent controversies in US academic circles about the use of sociological theories in communist studies contends that historians favoring the "neototalitarian approach" blame social science concepts, especially modernization theory, for the post-1989 "intellectual disaster," claiming Soviet socialism was attributed with an unrealistic capacity for reform. Although communism's demise has negated some arguments of the modernization approach, it is argued that abandoning sociological theories would be a grave mistake, especially since neototalitarian approaches are not a viable alternative. Cognitive problems of the totalitarian approach are examined, noting the conceptual reorientation that emerged in the 1960s as an attempt to overcome these deficiencies. Sociological explanations of communist systems are reviewed, & the modernization approach is compared to neototalitarian explanatory models of the Soviet breakdown, illuminating theoretical flaws in the latter, & demonstrating that neototalitarian theorists simply add a different evaluative component to the arguments of modernization theorists. Consideration is given to the complex causes of the Soviet downfall & a structure of domination familiar to Soviet research. J. Lindroth

Während des Ost-West-Konflikts standen sich Vertreter der Totalitarismustheorie und Anhänger von Entwicklungs- und Modernisierungstheorien unversöhnlich gegenüber. Beide überschätzten aus unterschiedlichen Gründen die Wandlungsfähigkeit der kommunistisch-bürokratischen Herrschaft. Als diese zerbröselte, sollten Transitionstheorien die Konsolidierung demokratischer Systeme erklären. Allein, diese konsolidierten sich nicht. Heute sucht die politikwissenschaftliche Osteuropaforschung nach geeigneten Konzepten, um die typischen Merkmale der so unterschiedlichen Regierungsformen und Regimetypen zwischen Tschechien und Turkmenistan zu erfassen. (Osteuropa (Berlin) / SWP)

The systematic study of law in Eastern Europe began in the 1920s. The involvement of experts in eastern law during the Nazi era has hardly been researched. In the East-West conflict, many of the legal scholars who focused on Communist Eastern Europe emphasised the role of their discipline as part of a political struggle. With the collapse of Communism, this legitimacy was lost. Even the content of socialist law disappeared. However, the opening of the countries of East Central and Eastern Europe and the differentiation of their legal systems have produced many new possibilities: the study of East European law is important for practical legal advice and should be an integral part of both general comparative law, as well as regional research directed towards Eastern Europe. Adapted from the source document.