ing revolutionary identities and politics; and to examine 1917 from the perspective of post-colonial peasant studies. They have added these new methods to a framework that still draws on, but largely revises earlier social historians' focus on social polarization.
[Cite Hickey articles, 1996-2001; Holquist, Making War, Forging Revolution (2002); Retish 2003 dissertation; Badcock 2003 dissertation).
II. Body Paragraphs
1st section: Works published before 1967. Main point: Soviet studies all locked into "triumphal march" paradigm, western studies all locked into "conspiracy of Bolshevik minority who spread the revolution by decree" paradigm. Two views really mirror images of one another (both based on top down conception of revolution).
~Paragraph that examines arguments in typical western scholarship, e.g., small sections in books by Bernard Pares, Leonard Shapiro, etc., that discuss the provinces.
[Pares 1930 book; Schapiro's 1953 book, etc.)
~Paragraph that examines Soviet scholarship, particularly early post-Stalin works under guidance of Mints in 1950s and early 1960s
[Mints' 1957 volume; the 2 volume Triumphal'noe shestve Sovetskoi vlasti;a few local publications, etc]
~Paragraph on the exception: chapters in Chamberlin's 1930 study, which considered the social basis of support for the revolution in the provinces.
2nd section: the social historians and their critics in the 1960s-1980s. Main point: The tension between the social historians and their "social polarization paradigm" and their "liberal" and "conservative" critics reflected basic Cold War divisions in the western body politic. With very few exceptions, these works spent little time on the provinces. The breakthrough was Raleigh's Revolution on the Volga.
~Paragraphs on the social polarization paradigm most important social histories of Petrograd and Moscow that set mold for later studies of the provinces.
[Haimson's 1963-64 articles; Rabinowitch's 1967 and 1976 book; Ferro's 1978 and 1981 books; Koenker's 1981 book; Smith's 1983 book; Wade's 1984 book; Suny's 1983 AHR essay; etc]
~Paragraphs on major criticisms of social polarization paradigm.
[From the Right, Pipes (esp. 1990 book). From the center, Melgunov (1964 Russian émigré edition) and Daniels (1967), etc.]
~Paragraphs on works that did actually deal with the provinces:
a) in the social polarization paradigm
[Suny, 1972 book, Erzigalias, 1976 book; Gill, 1978 book; Getzler, 1984 book; Wade, chapters in 1984 book; and especially Raleigh's 1986 book]
b) major but subtle rejection of social polarization paradigm for the provinces
[Keep, 1976 book]
3rd section: Works with explicit focus on the provinces in the 1980s-early 1990s that elaborated the social historian's paradigm.
~Paragraphs on Raleigh, Revolution on the Volga (1986)
~Paragraphs on Figes, Peasant Russia (1989)
~Paragraph on articles from 1980s-1990 by Melancon
~Paragraph on Hickey, Revolutionary Smolensk (1993)
4th section: Post cold war works on the provinces that have moved beyond without rejecting the social historians' paradigm. Focus on setting 1917 into context of wartime crisis of 1914-1922 and trans-national routines of the modern state, cultural historical approaches to discourse and identity, post-colonial peasant studies, and an eclectic mix of all of these. All based on extensive use of archival materials as well as new methods of analysis
~Paragraph on works that focus on the context of the wartime crisis (1914-1922).
[Holquist Making War (2002), Retish dissertation (2002), Baker book (2006)]
~Paragraph on works that focus on trans-national routines of the modern state.
[Holquist, Making War (2002)]
~Paragraph on the cultural historical focus on discourse and identity.
[articles by Hickey (1996, 1998), dissertation by Badcock (2002), Raleigh's 2004 book]
~Paragraph on application of post-colonial peasant studies.
[Retish dissertation (2002)]
~Paragraph on the new eclecticism found in several archive-based studies.
[articles by Hickey (2000, 2001); Baker book (2006); forthcoming book by Badcock]
~Patterns of historiography of Ru