Abstract:
For the past few years, history seems to have been switched from "normal" speed
to "Fast forward." Vast transformations have been occurring in what once appeared to be immutable aspects of Soviet foreign and domestic politics as well as in international
relations generally. Nor have these transformations necessarily come to an
end. Others may yet be in store.
How should questions about the foreign and domestic politics of the former Soviet
Union be analysed during this period of rapid change? The question is an important
one since the methodology or approach scholars employ can in large measure
determine the answers to the questions they ask.
I will argue here that traditional Sovietology, or an analysis of domestic and
foreign policy issues from the perspective of Russian and Soviet history, is not the
most fruitful method for studying a situation in which rapid change is occurring. A
more productive approach, in my view, is what will be called here comparative
historical analysis - an approach which seeks to relate questions regarding the
foreign and domestic politics of the former USSR to similar situations which have
occurred elsewhere. No claim is being made that this method will yield definitive
answers. What it can do, though, is bring to light a range of answers or possibilities
that traditional Sovietology, by examining questions solely in terms of the
Russian/Soviet historical experience, does not.
In this paper, I will first examine traditional Sovietology and consider why it is
no longer as useful a methodology as it once was. I will then outline comparative
historical analysis and discuss why it might be a more appropriate methodology for
analysing the current situation. Finally, I will discuss two examples of the very
different results which different methodologies might yield when applied to the
same question.
