Book Reviews : Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror. Edited by JOHN KEEP and LILLIANA BRISBY. (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964. Pp. xviii, 331.)
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296401700446 |
| Date | 01 December 1964 |
| Author | Peter A. Toma |
| Published date | 01 December 1964 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
835
as
novel
as
the
book
would
seem
to
suggest.
There
is
a
pitfall
in
the
approach,
how-
ever,
and
the
authors
have
in
some
instances
succumbed
to
the
temptation
of
writing
not
about
the
legislative
process,
but
about
American
political
institutions.
Thus,
an
entire
chapter
with
the
title,
&dquo;Interest
Groups
in
American
Politics,&dquo;
has
been
in-
cluded.
It
is
certainly
well
done,
but
need
not
have been
made
part
of
this
book.
Particularly
impressive
about
Keefe
and
Ogul’s
volume
is
the
scope
of
the
litera-
ture
examined
and
the
willingness
of
the
authors
to
utilize
varying
approaches
to
the
study
of
the
legislative
process.
The
book
is
also
written
with
wit
and
candor.
It
is
refreshing
to
read
a
text
which
will
point
out
that
some
of
the
wisdoms
uttered
by
political
scientists
may
be
supported
by
little
or
no
evidence.
Which
one
of
us
has
not
found
himself
making
a
pontifical
statement,
being
challenged
or
reflecting
upon
the
statement,
and
realizing
that
our
evidence
was
that
we
have
heard
a
favorite
pro-
fessor
make
the
assertion
in
the
years
past?
In
the
treatment
of
the
national
legislative
process
this
book
is
at
its
best.
The
descriptive
chapters
are
as
complete
as
is
necessary,
yet
they
avoid
both
legal
formal-
ism
and
reliance
on
the
anecdote.
In
a
really
superb
concluding
chapter
the
weak-
nesses
of
Congress
are
identified
and
evaluated.
The
last
chapter
attempts
to
account
for
the
loss
of
legislative
vitality,
the
alternative
roles
open
to
legislatures,
and
the
probable
consequences
should
they
be
adopted.
Despite
the
limitations
of
the
state
legislative
aspects
of
this
book,
on
balance
it
should
be
regarded
as
a
valuable
contribution
to
the
textbook
literature.
San
Fernando
Valley
State
College
G.
R.
FIELD
Contemporary
History
in
the
Soviet
Mirror.
Edited
by
JOHN
KEEP
and
LILLIANA
BRISBY.
(New
York:
Frederick
A.
Praeger,
1964.
Pp.
xviii,
331.)
Three
years
ago
at
the
Institut
Universitaire
de
Hautes
Etudes
Internationales
twenty-eight
scholars
from
Europe
and
the
United
States
met
in
Geneva,
Switzer-
land,
to
examine
contemporary
Soviet
historiography.
One
tangible
result
of
this
conference,
cosponsored
by
the
Swiss
Institut
and
the
editors
of
the
British
Survey,
is
the
publication
of
this
volume
containing
thirteen
papers
and
a
brief
summary
of
the
discussions.
The
essays
in
this
symposium
are
devoted
to
the
question
&dquo;how
far,
if
at
all,
has
the
Soviet
image
of
the
past
changed
since
the
death
of
Stalin?&dquo;
The
concensus
of
the
contributors
is
that
&dquo;nothing
has
really
changed&dquo;
because
the
role
of
the
historian
and
the
role
of
the
CPSU
in
the
Soviet
society
since
Stalin
have
remained
the
same.
&dquo;As
in
Stalin’s
day
the
historian
is
seen
as
a
soldier
of
the
party:
but
now
he
is
required
to
show
much
more
’spontaneous’
zeal
and
enthusiasm.&dquo;
In
other
words,
&dquo;the
task
of
the
historian
is
to
support
and
interpret
the
changing
official
image
of
the
past,
which
is
manipulated
as
the
leadership
thinks
necessary
to
maintain
its
legitimacy
and
expand
its
power.&dquo;
The
tool
by
which
Soviet
historiography
is
manip-
ulated
is,
of
course,
Communist
ideology.
Ideology,
i.e.,
party
control
of
values,
is
a
double-edged
sword
making
life
of
the Soviet
historian
both
easy
(when
there
is
no
conflict
between
the
professional
interest
of
the
historian
and
the
political
interest
To continue reading
Request your trial