ook; 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 Russian Revolution similar to that of other major revolutions
~pre-1960s historiography on 1917 in the provinces was almost exclusively "top down" and political in its approach
~Cold War inflected debates dominated study of 1917 generally in the 1960s-1980s, but only one side in those debates (the leftist social historians) showed any real interest in the revolution in the provinces
~The first generation of serious historians of the revolution in the provinces all worked out of the social historical paradigm
~After the end of the Cold War, a second generation of scholars (and some of their older brethren) moved into the archives and beyond the foci of the social historians without rejecting the social historians basic arguments. New works in particular have tried to fit the story of 1917 in the provinces into the larger framework of the wartime crisis of 1914-1922; trans-national routines of the modern state; cultural historical studies of discourse; and post-colonial peasant studies.