Periodic Reporting for period 1 - REVMUS (The historical-revolutionary museums of Petrograd-Leningrad, 1917–1941)
Reporting period: 2022-06-16 to 2024-06-15
This project examined how historical-revolutionary museums in Petrograd–Leningrad (1917-41) shaped public memory of the nineteenth-century revolutionary movement and 1917 Revolution. Although scholars have scrutinized top-down management of revolutionary narratives by Bolshevik leaders, museums—key custodians of the recent past—have received far less attention. By foregrounding these institutions, the project offers a ground-level perspective on politically sensitive memory-making. A pressing, overlooked question is how far 'lower orders' and grassroots activists shaped official memory—whether ideology could rise from below. The project illuminates how post-revolutionary societies transform, Thermidor concept applicability, and contributes to ongoing debates on Stalinism.
Understanding how politically sensitive and traumatic memories are constructed and institutionalized clarifies revolution mechanisms—rather than merely origins—and shows how societies navigate radical political change. It is especially central to current debates on the Socialist past in Central and Eastern Europe.
The project had three main research objectives:
To analyze agency behind the memory project established in historical revolutionary museums in 1917, showing how revolutionary intelligentsia used museums to institutionalize their collecive experience nor reducible to just Bolsheviks.
To examine formation and evolution of competing memory projects about revolutionary history in Russia as presented in historical-revolutionary museums during the 1920s-1930s, tracking how Stalinist memory projects gradually replaced earlier narratives.
To reconstruct symbolic and intellectual positions of historical-revolutionary museums in 1920-1930s Petrograd-Leningrad, and map the historical-revolutionary museum concept for the museum studies.
For career development, the objective was integrating into the Oxford academic community to solidify my standing as historian by expanding publication portfolio and (re)mastering historical data techniques.
Understanding how politically sensitive and traumatic memories are constructed and institutionalized clarifies revolution mechanisms—rather than merely origins—and shows how societies navigate radical political change. It is especially central to current debates on the Socialist past in Central and Eastern Europe.
The project had three main research objectives:
To analyze agency behind the memory project established in historical revolutionary museums in 1917, showing how revolutionary intelligentsia used museums to institutionalize their collecive experience nor reducible to just Bolsheviks.
To examine formation and evolution of competing memory projects about revolutionary history in Russia as presented in historical-revolutionary museums during the 1920s-1930s, tracking how Stalinist memory projects gradually replaced earlier narratives.
To reconstruct symbolic and intellectual positions of historical-revolutionary museums in 1920-1930s Petrograd-Leningrad, and map the historical-revolutionary museum concept for the museum studies.
For career development, the objective was integrating into the Oxford academic community to solidify my standing as historian by expanding publication portfolio and (re)mastering historical data techniques.
My project repositioned revolutionary and political-history museums as key institutions in Soviet and global history, elevating them from peripheral footnotes to central subjects. I mapped the historical-revolutionary museum as a distinct typology and uncovered evidence of their international dimension, previously considered exclusively Soviet institutions. I brought forward concepts of revolutionary culture and tradition, documenting how revolutionaries in the Russian Empire began preserving and institutionalizing their history in the 19th century, demonstrating how these symbolic practices served as revolutionary factors.
I gathered substantial archival materials about revolutionary museums in the 1930s and examined how the concept of Thermidor can be applied to Stalinist transformations. This work focused on symbolic elements through memory studies rather than socio-economic or political devevolpments. I analyzed heritage concepts and their evolution during the 1920s-30s USSR, examining how parallel interpretations conflicted – universal understanding associated with classical aesthetics and architecture versus revolutionary heritage, whose proponents attempted redefining urban cultural landscapes and writing subversive history of imperial cultural objects.
I engaged with Digital Humanities, compiling extensive lists of digital repositories on Soviet and Russian history and culture. A postgraduate seminar on this subject was conducted for postraduate students. Additionaly, I have created a database of revolution and political history museums existing from the 19th century to present.
In terms of career development, I strengthened my position as a professional historian. While my PhD was in political sciences, I successfully recontextualized my previous history experience as planned.
I delivered over ten public presentations at academic conferences and to broader audiences, prepared two texts awaiting publication, and completed introductory sections of a planned monograph on historical-revolutionary museums in the early Soviet Union.
I gathered substantial archival materials about revolutionary museums in the 1930s and examined how the concept of Thermidor can be applied to Stalinist transformations. This work focused on symbolic elements through memory studies rather than socio-economic or political devevolpments. I analyzed heritage concepts and their evolution during the 1920s-30s USSR, examining how parallel interpretations conflicted – universal understanding associated with classical aesthetics and architecture versus revolutionary heritage, whose proponents attempted redefining urban cultural landscapes and writing subversive history of imperial cultural objects.
I engaged with Digital Humanities, compiling extensive lists of digital repositories on Soviet and Russian history and culture. A postgraduate seminar on this subject was conducted for postraduate students. Additionaly, I have created a database of revolution and political history museums existing from the 19th century to present.
In terms of career development, I strengthened my position as a professional historian. While my PhD was in political sciences, I successfully recontextualized my previous history experience as planned.
I delivered over ten public presentations at academic conferences and to broader audiences, prepared two texts awaiting publication, and completed introductory sections of a planned monograph on historical-revolutionary museums in the early Soviet Union.
• Revolutionary museology as distinct field: While scholarship has covered revolutionary narrative management from above, this project pioneered studying museums as key institutions in this process. The project established revolutionary museology as a distinct transnational phenomenon dating to the late 19th century and Russian revolutionary emigre communities accross Europe.
• Re-conceptualization of memory politics: Rather than viewing Soviet memory formation as linear and dominated by Bolshevik narratives from 1917, this study revealed competing memory projects in museums of revolutions that operated in early Soviet Union.
• Non-party socialism concept: The project introduced "non-party socialism" to describe actors who, while outside the Bolshevik Party, actively shaped Soviet cultural institutions. This challenges views that early Soviet political culture merely tolerated ideological diversity, showing instead that Bolsheviks and non-Bolshevik socialists saw themselves as heirs to common revolutionary lineage. Even under Stalinism and mass-scale repressions, material work by non-party socialists in revolutionary museums could not be erased, as it formed collection cores and became meaning-forming elements the Stalinist regime could not abandon.
• Thermidor as analytical category: By analyzing Petrograd-Leningrad revolutionary museums, the project theorized Thermidor as a distinct phase within revolutionary processes, providing tools for understanding post-revolutionary transitions. Thermidor captures revolutionary decline when not yet apparent, while rulers continue citing revolution for legitimacy and view themselves as continuing the revolutionary cause.
• Heritage formation dynamics: The research shows how revolutionary history competed with classical cultural patrimony, offering insights into how societies value the past through cultural institutions. This advances heritage studies by providing a case diverging from Western preservationist norms. In the 1920s, revolutionary museums attempted formulating heritage as a subversive category.
Expected results beyond project end
Although the fellowship has concluded, the research laid groundwork for additional outcomes. A third article will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal examining how the concept of Thermidor can applied to post-revolutionary societies in the domain of historical memory. I also continue the work on the monograph about museumifying of the revolutionary memories.
Potential impacts
The project creates important empirical foundations for studying historical-revolutionary museums, opening perspectives for analyzing revolutionary identity, historical memory formation and the nature of Stalinism. It provides methodological models for scholars studying memory institutionalization in revolutionary movements and post-revolutionary societies.
The project also impacts my career prospects. Beyond formal credentials from receiving a Marie Curie grant and working at Oxford, I acquired wonderful colleagues and established myself as a professional academic historian.
• Re-conceptualization of memory politics: Rather than viewing Soviet memory formation as linear and dominated by Bolshevik narratives from 1917, this study revealed competing memory projects in museums of revolutions that operated in early Soviet Union.
• Non-party socialism concept: The project introduced "non-party socialism" to describe actors who, while outside the Bolshevik Party, actively shaped Soviet cultural institutions. This challenges views that early Soviet political culture merely tolerated ideological diversity, showing instead that Bolsheviks and non-Bolshevik socialists saw themselves as heirs to common revolutionary lineage. Even under Stalinism and mass-scale repressions, material work by non-party socialists in revolutionary museums could not be erased, as it formed collection cores and became meaning-forming elements the Stalinist regime could not abandon.
• Thermidor as analytical category: By analyzing Petrograd-Leningrad revolutionary museums, the project theorized Thermidor as a distinct phase within revolutionary processes, providing tools for understanding post-revolutionary transitions. Thermidor captures revolutionary decline when not yet apparent, while rulers continue citing revolution for legitimacy and view themselves as continuing the revolutionary cause.
• Heritage formation dynamics: The research shows how revolutionary history competed with classical cultural patrimony, offering insights into how societies value the past through cultural institutions. This advances heritage studies by providing a case diverging from Western preservationist norms. In the 1920s, revolutionary museums attempted formulating heritage as a subversive category.
Expected results beyond project end
Although the fellowship has concluded, the research laid groundwork for additional outcomes. A third article will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal examining how the concept of Thermidor can applied to post-revolutionary societies in the domain of historical memory. I also continue the work on the monograph about museumifying of the revolutionary memories.
Potential impacts
The project creates important empirical foundations for studying historical-revolutionary museums, opening perspectives for analyzing revolutionary identity, historical memory formation and the nature of Stalinism. It provides methodological models for scholars studying memory institutionalization in revolutionary movements and post-revolutionary societies.
The project also impacts my career prospects. Beyond formal credentials from receiving a Marie Curie grant and working at Oxford, I acquired wonderful colleagues and established myself as a professional academic historian.