Page 65 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 65
a distant view in michelle pfeiffer‘s smiling eyes
cialist” or a “people’s democracy”. Apart from the horror stories from the
history of Stalinist Russia and from other socialist countries (especially
during the period lasting a decade or so after the Second World War), the
socialist2 societies functioned as complex societies in all respects. This, sim-
ply put, means that they had by and large a kind of functioning economy,
very strong public institutions and quite a complex culture, which com-
prised of traditional (folk) culture and different constructions of culture
as envisioned by the socialist ideology. Still, in spite of whatever anybody
may say today, these societies and states were perceived for a few decades as
“normal” by their members/citizens, and up until the very last moment be-
fore their final collapse, not even social scientists had any idea about the ex-
tent of an imminent change.
How did analysts, journalists and the public in different countries read
many different signs of a coming change? This question calls for an exten-
sive analysis of the different discourses of the time. Furthermore, social
changes (a concept that comprises vastly complex meanings) in different
countries had different dynamics. Some socialist countries, ones that had
managed to edge closer to some kind of democratisation and market econ-
omy, like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in the sixties, looked different in
the eighties, when Poland and Hungary arrived closer to the invisible lim-
its of the so-called “socialist development”. The whole chain of events has
been even less transparent since also different trends and tendencies exist-
ed within certain countries, notably those with some kind of federalist ar-
rangement. It was a complex history in which politics and ideology played
a central and, most often, a decisive role. However, in the fields of economy
and culture, dissimilar developments on the way to different paradigms of
society could be perceived. Of course, insights into “what has really been
going on” were rare and not until just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, did
such insights become known to the interested public worldwide. A full ex-
planation of all the “whats and whys” is still an open task for future histori-
ans to undertake. Of course, it is impossible to predict which answers will
be found – if any at all.
2 Sometimes one comes across terminological misunderstandings concerning the
signification of the notions “communist” and “socialist” – especially with American
readers. Since, what is in the West labelled as “former communist” societies, were the
States, which considered them to be “socialist” and mostly anticipated communism
as a “next stage of a social development”.
63
cialist” or a “people’s democracy”. Apart from the horror stories from the
history of Stalinist Russia and from other socialist countries (especially
during the period lasting a decade or so after the Second World War), the
socialist2 societies functioned as complex societies in all respects. This, sim-
ply put, means that they had by and large a kind of functioning economy,
very strong public institutions and quite a complex culture, which com-
prised of traditional (folk) culture and different constructions of culture
as envisioned by the socialist ideology. Still, in spite of whatever anybody
may say today, these societies and states were perceived for a few decades as
“normal” by their members/citizens, and up until the very last moment be-
fore their final collapse, not even social scientists had any idea about the ex-
tent of an imminent change.
How did analysts, journalists and the public in different countries read
many different signs of a coming change? This question calls for an exten-
sive analysis of the different discourses of the time. Furthermore, social
changes (a concept that comprises vastly complex meanings) in different
countries had different dynamics. Some socialist countries, ones that had
managed to edge closer to some kind of democratisation and market econ-
omy, like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in the sixties, looked different in
the eighties, when Poland and Hungary arrived closer to the invisible lim-
its of the so-called “socialist development”. The whole chain of events has
been even less transparent since also different trends and tendencies exist-
ed within certain countries, notably those with some kind of federalist ar-
rangement. It was a complex history in which politics and ideology played
a central and, most often, a decisive role. However, in the fields of economy
and culture, dissimilar developments on the way to different paradigms of
society could be perceived. Of course, insights into “what has really been
going on” were rare and not until just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, did
such insights become known to the interested public worldwide. A full ex-
planation of all the “whats and whys” is still an open task for future histori-
ans to undertake. Of course, it is impossible to predict which answers will
be found – if any at all.
2 Sometimes one comes across terminological misunderstandings concerning the
signification of the notions “communist” and “socialist” – especially with American
readers. Since, what is in the West labelled as “former communist” societies, were the
States, which considered them to be “socialist” and mostly anticipated communism
as a “next stage of a social development”.
63
