Becoming Post-Soviet

<p>It has often been noted that the collapse of the socialist system did not result in research activities that could be compared to postcolonial studies. As Ewa Thompson has observed, “Unlike Western colonies, which have increasingly talked back to their former masters, Russia’s colonies have by and large remained mute.” Instead, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, opinions have been expressed from within different research fields regarding the appropriateness of thinking of post-Soviet societies in terms of postcolonial studies. Nevertheless, asserting that postsocialism continues to remain a useful category for researchers, Caroline Humphrey notes the existence of a growing gap between Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltic countries on the one hand, and Russia, Middle Asia, and the Caucasian countries on the other.</p> <p>In this text, the term “post-Soviet” will be used mainly in connection with the former Soviet Union (SU) republics (as distinct from the Central and Eastern European countries), although there were regional and individual distinctions among them, in particular regarding the duration and forms of pre-Soviet Russian rule. Passing over the issue of whether the term “post-Soviet” is outdated or not, I would like to talk instead about the fact that the post-Soviet situation has not been properly conceptualized. There is a lack of new notions that allow us to articulate, and thus to convey, a credible existence to post-Soviet experiences, and neither have the tools developed by other fields (e.g., postcolonial studies) been used for this purpose in a consistent and productive manner. This essay is an attempt to discuss these and other related issues, but through the narrower focus of a distinct country—Armenia…</p>