Message from the President

[Deb Palmieri on Russia Table of Contents]

The following article was published inGlobal Pages, Vol. 4 No 2, May-June 1986. Global Pages is an educational publication of Immaculate Heart College Center in Los Angeles, California.

Teaching About the Soviet Union is Both Challenging and Difficult

It is an area of study which is often absent from basic classroom materials. Nonetheless, it is an important and necessary component of education if one is to understand the state of world affairs today. Teachers need to provide information on the basic issues, prepare students as informed citizens and future decision-makers, and be equipped to deal with the special problems encountered when discussing Soviet affairs.

Because the state of U.S.-Soviet relations is one of the foremost political concerns today, Americans need to be informed about the complex issues involved in formulating policy toward the U.S.S.R., including arms control, political affairs, economic exchange and cultural relations.

In fact, today this understanding is more important than ever. We are in the midst of a period of difficult relations and given the nature of hostility and instability, there exists a higher risk of conflict escalation. Increased military competition is creating systems that are less verifiable and perhaps less stable. Regional conflicts in the Third World run the risk of developing into superpower conflicts, a fact clearly attested to in the Central American and the Middle East situations.

Despite the improvements in communication which took place during the Reagan-Gorbachev summit and its aftermath, basic problems such as coexistence, arms control, economic and trade relations and spheres of influence in the Third World have not been resolved. In fact, American-Soviet relations in the last four-five years have experienced the greatest deterioration since the post-war tensions of the late 1940s - early 1950s, and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1961. Although there have been recent diplomatic exchanges fostering a slight increase of communication, the state of the relationship is characterized by a deeply entrenched political stalemate. Each side accuses the other of blatant militarism, insincere peace initiatives, and aggressive policies of expansionism. Strong nationalistic tendencies among large numbers of people continue to fuel more distrust.

This is the reality that our students face. It is complex, difficult and often dangerous. In order to confront the issues and implications, future decision-makers need to be exposed to extensive factual material about the Soviet Union - its people, government, economic system, history, geography and culture. The simplistic concepts, stereotypes and misinformation must be changed and the classroom is a logical place to initiate this process.

Granted, this is easier said than done. Teachers face a special set of problems in the classroom when they attempt to teach about Soviet affairs. They must wade through the fiction to find the fact, test their own prejudices against objective and/or ideological criteria and develop interpretations which challenge "comfortable" stereotypes. Teachers are confronted with personal beliefs, political biases, social predispositions and strong anti-communist traditions when approaching this subject.

Education in this area has been dominated by conservative political ideology characterized by extreme anti-Sovietism and anticommunism. The presentation of the subject matter has tended to extol the benefits of capitalism and the U.S. government while devaluing everything Soviet. The emotionally charged nature of this field of study has been further fueled by the politically controversial issues which inevitably surface due to the differences between both systems, and the perceived need to justify one over the other. Especially during times of increased U.S.-Soviet tension, more biased information and hostile stereotypes tend to be disseminated in an especially aggressive tone. For example, teachers who attempted a more objective presentation of the facts, either in lectures or books during the late 1950s early 1960s, were labeled pro-Communist, pro-Soviet and thus, anti-American. Many older teachers can recall that decade's loyalty oath designed to enforce American patriotism in the schools.

The field of study is also emotionally charged because it has a high policy relevance, and the government feels it must foster a particular kind of attitude toward its main adversary - one of hostile feelings with the perception that the Soviet Union is an enemy state. This is not surprising since the field of Soviet studies in this country emerged during the Cold War. The U.S. government sees the Soviet Union as its main political and economic adversary and believes the American system of government to be morally superior to communism in every aspect. It is, indeed, important to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each system in terms of philosophical underpinnings and practical policy, the manner in which each struggles to meet the basic needs of its people, the issue of human rights and freedoms. But, such comparisons can only be adequately conducted with factual material and critical thinking skills, not with partial information and opinions based on ignorance.

Given these formidable obstacles, there are some practical guidelines for teachers who decide to bring this subject matter into the classroom. It is important that educators nourish and present a higher quality of basic education about the Soviet Union, including its people, government, history and geography. An attitude of cynicism, mockery or American arrogance only fosters ignorance and clouds a genuine understanding of the key issues. Teachers need to present both facts and alternative interpretations or frameworks of analysis, to encourage critical and analytical thinking about government systems in both countries. There are myriad ways to develop problem-solving skills in the classroom which allow students to reach their own opinions and decide how they would manage controversial current events. It is clearly a formidable challenge, one which will not necessarily be received with receptive arms. But the process can be exciting and the outcome can lead to a more informed citizenry prepared to confront the complex issues of the world today.

Deborah Palmieri
Global Pages, Vol. 4 No 2, May-June 1986