Orlando Figes is one of the most prominent historians of Russian history, especially well known for his extensive work on the Russian Revolution, Stalinism, and the Soviet Union. His publications, such asA People’s TragedyandThe Whisperers, have influenced public and academic understanding of 20th-century Russia. A frequent question among scholars and students is whether Figes can be classified as a ‘revisionist’ historian. To explore this, one must first understand what revisionism means in the context of historiography and then examine how Figes’ work fits or diverges from this framework.
Understanding Historical Revisionism
Historical revisionism refers to the practice of reinterpreting established narratives in light of new evidence, perspectives, or methodologies. It is not inherently controversial; in fact, it is an essential part of academic scholarship. However, in certain contexts, especially in the study of Soviet history, the term ‘revisionist’ has taken on more specific connotations.
Traditional vs. Revisionist Schools in Soviet Historiography
- Traditionalistsoften emphasized high politics, ideology, and the top-down control of leaders like Lenin and Stalin. They focused on central power structures and portrayed Soviet citizens largely as passive victims.
- Revisionistsin Soviet studies emerged in the 1960s and 70s. They challenged elite-centered narratives and emphasized social history, including the role of workers, peasants, and everyday people. They saw the Soviet system as shaped by a combination of state control and popular participation.
Revisionists sought to show that Soviet society was not entirely dominated by the regime but was shaped by negotiation, resistance, and adaptation. Thus, calling a historian a revisionist implies a shift in focus from the Kremlin to the broader experiences of the Soviet population.
Orlando Figes and Social History
One of the main reasons Orlando Figes is sometimes associated with revisionism is his emphasis on social history. His landmark work,A People’s Tragedy, for instance, covers not only the political and military events of the Russian Revolution but also the experiences of peasants, workers, soldiers, and ordinary citizens. This people-centered narrative aligns with revisionist priorities.
The Whisperersas a Social History
Perhaps the clearest example of Figes’ interest in social history isThe Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin’s Russia. This book draws heavily on personal letters, diaries, and oral histories to explore how ordinary Soviet citizens navigated life under Stalin’s regime. It highlights the psychological and emotional impact of surveillance, repression, and ideological conformity topics often overlooked in more traditional analyses.
Through this lens, Figes reveals the complex ways individuals responded to totalitarianism not simply as victims but also as participants, collaborators, or survivors. This humanization of Soviet citizens aligns with revisionist efforts to expand the scope of historical inquiry beyond elite institutions.
Figes and the Role of the State
Despite his focus on social experience, Figes does not shy away from discussing the authoritarian nature of Soviet power. He remains critical of Leninist ideology and state repression. In this sense, his work does not fully break with traditionalist approaches, which stress the centrality of state violence and coercion.
Balanced Interpretive Approach
What distinguishes Figes from earlier revisionists is that he does not romanticize Soviet citizens as heroic resisters. Instead, he presents a more nuanced portrait: people who simultaneously suffered, adapted, and sometimes collaborated with the state. His method blends political history with social and cultural history, offering a broad, multifaceted view of Soviet life.
Comparing Figes with Other Historians
To better understand where Orlando Figes fits within historical scholarship, it helps to compare his approach with that of other major figures in the field.
- Richard Pipes: A traditionalist known for his anti-communist stance, Pipes emphasized the totalitarian nature of the Soviet state and minimized the role of social movements. Figes departs significantly from Pipes by giving more weight to popular experience and cultural dynamics.
- Sheila Fitzpatrick: One of the leading revisionist historians, Fitzpatrick focused on everyday life under Stalin, showing how people used the system to their advantage. Figes’The Whisperersshares this thematic concern but is more psychological and emotional in tone.
- Stephen Kotkin: Kotkin combines high-level political analysis with a deep engagement in ideology. Figes, in contrast, leans more into cultural and social history, though both explore Stalinism in depth.
Figes’ versatility in integrating multiple approaches makes him difficult to classify strictly as a revisionist or traditionalist. He borrows tools from both camps to create a layered and compelling narrative.
Public Perception and Criticism
As a public intellectual and popular historian, Figes has occasionally faced criticism for blending storytelling with scholarship. Some academics argue that his accessible style may oversimplify complex historical phenomena. Others appreciate his ability to reach wide audiences while maintaining academic rigor.
Controversies and Credibility
Figes’ career was briefly marred by a plagiarism and review scandal in the early 2010s. Though this incident cast a shadow over his reputation, it did not significantly undermine the scholarly value of his major works. He remains widely cited and respected in the field of Russian studies.
Is Orlando Figes a Revisionist?
Orlando Figes exhibits many qualities associated with revisionist historians an emphasis on social history, a focus on ordinary people, and the use of personal narratives. However, he does not fully abandon the political and ideological frameworks central to traditional interpretations of Soviet history. Instead, he occupies a middle ground, blending methodologies to provide a rich and humanistic account of Russia’s 20th-century experience.
To label him strictly as a revisionist would oversimplify his contributions. Figes is best understood as a hybrid historian someone who bridges the gap between the Kremlin and the kitchen, the political elite and the private citizen. In doing so, he offers one of the most comprehensive and empathetic views of Russian history available today.