At the time of the disaster

In March 1985, Soviet television broadcasts the adventures of the young Soviet from the future, Alissa Selezniova, struggling with space pirates, contemporary declination of the saboteurs of the 1920s and 1930s infiltrated in USSR To corrupt the Bolshevik project. This series is taken from the very popular science fiction novels of Kir Boulitchev. It shows a society where communism has finally triumphed ; Children from the future show surprising athletic qualities, talk about dozens of languages ​​and have extensive intellectual skills. L’USSR Control interstellar flights and public transport have become flying shuttles. The future is indeed radiant. On the night of April 25 to 26, 1986, the number 4 reactor of the Chernobyl power station exploded. The announcement of the accident calls into question the Soviet technological advance and the confidence of its citizens in scientific progress and the future.

Laurent Coumel, lecturer at theInalcostarts from this event, the Chernobyl disaster, and a place of observation, Pripiat, the city which adjoins the power station, for “ make the social history of this continent country understand in the years 1970-1990 ». Pripiat is a atomograd (Atomic city), which gives the village a separate territorial status and its population, a special regime. Its construction was launched in 1970. It was to welcome the staff of the power station and their families. In 1986, 45,000 inhabitants, quite young, resided there. The average age is 26 years ; The birth rate is strong. Based on a recent and multilingual historiography, the author deploys from this microcosm, in a lively and synthetic work, the aspects of Soviet civilization during the 1980s. The author mainly relied on secondary sources: volumes of published documents (in particular on the accident in the files of the files of Kgb), statistics and some testimonies. When sources are missing to document the situation of Pripiat, the author reasons by analogy with contemporary cases. The book is abundantly illustrated by biographical trajectories, late Soviet literature and the evocation of fiction films, television series and cartoons. French historiography, long dominated by the analysis of Stalinism, mass violence, repression, imperial logics, was only recently interested in the Soviet daily, especially that of the years 1960-1970. Laurent Coumel’s book extends this perspective to the 1980s and to the Soviet Union which is not yet perceived by its inhabitants as ending, by presenting the institutions, representations and social logics which transform Soviet society. He completed the excellent catalog produced on the occasion of an exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts in La Chaux-de-Fonds Daily utopia: ordinary life in USSR which illustrates abundantly, by quality photographs, and quotes from novels the phases of the life of the Soviets, rites and institutions which today seem very exotic. It is in this Soviet civilization which is ultimately so foreign to us that Laurent Coumel immerses us during eight chapters.

Sweet life in Pripiat

When the planned test at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant derailed on April 26, 1986 and the explosion occurs, a light column with blue reflections rises in the sky. It is through the evocation of the night and the way in which the Soviets invest it that Laurent Coumel begins. As this catastrophe takes place, the author suggests that part of the scientific-technical intelligentsia responsible for monitoring the power plant was to devote itself to this leisure so disseminated in the Soviet Union: reading. The night is often devoted to reading. Classic, scientific-technical brochures, science fiction, possibly gray literature of dissent: “ The whole Soviet society read and its elites even more ». The night can also be occupied by other hobbies: listening to music, foreign programs … Pripiat plays a role here in the dissemination of these other cultural practices. The Jupiter factory which produces devices intended for the armament industry also produces tape recorders. Audios cassettes allow both the dissemination of songs from Soviet variety, author song or emerging cultures such as rock. The radios capture foreign emissions in short wave. Sociotechnical intelligentsia, that which operates atomic power plants and industrial flagships of the country, takes part in the emergence of circles, including lifestyle and divergent interests with those of the official Soviet project.

For workers and employees, the 1970s and 1980s are those of comfort for comfort. In a few years, Pripat, like all Soviet cities, extends and covers modern buildings. 160 large-sets are built there to accommodate workers who came to work in factories and the power station. In the mid -1990s, peripheral districts were considered symptomatic of a “ fauburg (Vladimir Glazytchev). These modern dwellings, allocated by municipal authorities, companies or ministries, have private bathrooms and individual chambers. The heating or electricity loads are minimal. The Soviets acquire furniture, decorate them to their liking, personalize them with trinkets. Social hierarchies manifest themselves: the most favored Soviets buy high -end furniture from Yugoslavia or Latvia, expose goods purchased in Beriozki (stores selling consumption articles imported from abroad against currencies) or their rare equipment (TV, Hi-Fi channel, etc.). Laurent Coumel highlights the variety of supply circuits: to the official circuits, are added interpersonal preferential networks or the black market which make it possible to compensate for the insufficiencies of the planned economy.

Hierarchies and inequalities

The supply of food products forced Soviets to a set of adaptation strategies to ignore shortages. The distribution of food products is not egalitarian in the territory: large cities, republican capitals and closed cities due to their strategic interest are better supplied. To this are added institutionalized hierarchies. Managers of ministries, party and strategic industries have access to elite canteens, benefit from products accessible via special stores or receive wine, liqueurs and spirits as gifts. For the commonness of the Soviets, access to datchas (small country house without running water) allows urban people to escape during the summer months in the countryside and cultivate food for winter (potatoes, cabbage and tomatoes, fruit) which they keep, transform into marinades or into jams or ferment. These products are added to chopped meats, sausages and industrial pasta purchased in stores, for which it is often necessary to wait in long tails. Picking berries or mushrooms, fishing can complete purchases, bring vitamins and proteins or constitute a meditative leisure. In order to improve comfort and meet the needs of Soviets who have become consumers, Soviet agrifood industries have developed the production of candy and chocolates, lemonades and even have, for the Moscow Olympic Games, signed trade agreements with Pepsi to produce Soda bottles in Soviet territory.

From food and supply, Laurent Coumel then shifts his gaze to the intimate of the Soviets. Far from the sexual avant-garde promised by Aleksandra Kollontaï, the Soviet society of the 1980s is deeply conformist. Social stabilization also contributes to strengthening gender inequalities: despite the official feminism and real achievements of Soviet women (economic autonomy), women are responsible for domestic work. They are the ones who take care of children, the elderly and with a disability and most often of the family supply. In the mid -1980s, the rite of marriage seal in a secularized form in “ wedding palace Entry into adulthood and constitutes a guarantee of good morality. If abortion is legalized, the means of contraception are little disseminated, sexuality remains a taboo and homosexuality arouses public stigma.

The last four chapters are organized around the times that make up the daily life of Soviets: study, work, “ free time And the holidays. Laurent Coumel highlights other forms of social inequality. The Soviet school system remains very partitioned and unequal. Professional and technical education concentrates rural youth. Three out of five Soviets are continuing their studies in senior establishments, in particular to train intermediate executives. The most gifted of Pripiat join the state universities or the Polytechnic Institute of kyiv. The school is not the only management institution for youth. From 14 to 28 years old, most high school students become komsomols. They benefit from an in -depth ideological education there which often involves the inculcation of the sacrifice and by the worship of the “ Great Patriotic War », Remobilized today by President Vladimir Putin. With regard to work at the factory, far from passivity and dysfunctions associated with Soviet companies, Laurent Coumel shows how the diet has sought since the 1950s to increase productivity. In addition to the reforms concerning the command system, the campaigns to combat indiscipline at work or the forms of pilfling are regular. THE Kgb Even in 1982 acquired a brigade responsible for combating economic crime and corruption.

Far from examining what has made an event and far from dwelling on the successive decision -making (or their absence), the author is interested in all that surrounds the disaster. The book finally speaks very little about Chernobyl. The reactor’s explosion acts more here as a revealer of Soviet life of the 1980s. As such, this book constitutes a beautiful essay in social history of the late Soviet Union. It shows us how Soviet society is also faced with notable dynamics in the societies of Western Europe: the rise of individualism, leisure, the search for comfort and a self. The work makes it possible to better understand the springs of nostalgia, frequent in contemporary Russian society, of this moment when theUSSR was a recognized power, where the future seemed stable, where the official framework was reassuring, where faith in Marxism-Leninism and in the propaganda of the regime continues a little. For many Soviet citizens, it was possible to accept discourse and authoritarian practices, because the regime tolerated strategies of adaptation to shortages and accepted margins – certainly limited – of autonomy.