1. Barber, for example, selects the years 1928 to 1934; John, Barber, “The Establishment of Intellectual Orthodoxy in the USSR, 1928–1934,” Past and Present, no. 83 (1979): 141–164 Google Scholar. Fitzpatrick chooses 1928 to 1931; Sheila, Fitzpatrick, ed., Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928–1931 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978 Google Scholar. Bauer, in his study of psychology, opts for January 1930 to July 1936; Bauer, Raymond A., The New Man in Soviet Psychology (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1959), p. 93 Google Scholar.

2. This term is taken from the title of Timasheff's, Nicholas S. study of the period, The Great Retreat: The Growth and Decline of Communism in Russia (New York: Dutton, 1946 Google Scholar.

3. See Hough, Jerry F., “The Cultural Revolution and Western Understanding of the SovietSystem,” in Fitzpatrick, , ed., Cultural Revolution, pp. 141–153 Google Scholar; the two are explicitly linked by Bauerin his, The New Man in Soviet Psychology,

4. Fitzpatrick, , “Editor's Introduction,” in Fitzpatrick, , ed., Cultural Revolution, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

5. Fitzpatrick, , “Cultural Revolution as Class War,” in Fitzpatrick, , ed., Cultural Revolution, p. 28.Google Scholar

6. Ibid., p. 18.

7. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1962).

8. Ibid., pp. 24–90.

9. George, M. Enteen, “Marxist Historians during the Cultural Revolution: A Case Study of Professional Infighting,” in Fitzpatrick, , ed., Cultural Revolution, p. 155 Google Scholar; see also, Enteen, , The Soviet-Scholar Bureaucrat: M. N. Pokrovskii and the Society of Marxist Historians (University Park: PennsylvaniaState University Press, 1978, pp. 64–90 Google Scholar.

10. Barber, John, Soviet Historians in Crisis 1928–1932 (London: Macmillan, 1981 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961).

12. Solomon, Susan Gross, The Soviet Agrarian Debate: A Controversy in Social Sciences, 1923–1929 (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1977)Google Scholar and “Rural Scholars and the Cultural Revolution,” in Fitzpatrick, ed., Cultural Revolution, pp. 129–153.

13. Solomon, “Rural Scholars,” p. 151.

14. Solomon, Soviet Agrarian Debate, p. 181.

15. Ibid., p. 182.

16. David, Joravsky, “The Construction of the Stalinist Psyche,” in Fitzpatrick, , ed., Cultural Revolution, pp. 108–109.Google Scholar

17. Solomon, “Rural Scholars,” p. 131.

18. Fitzpatrick, “Editor's Introduction,” p. 4.

19. Solomon, Soviet Agrarian Debate, p. 182. By “traditional norms” she seems to have in mind the norms of scientific behavior (organized skepticism, communism or communality, universalism, and disinterestedness) identified by Merton; see Merton, Robert K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Observations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973 Google Scholar.

20. Solomon, Soviet Agrarian Debate, p. 182. She states that the field's history was “nearly adecade” long, which is surely not a long time when compared with other research areas. Indeed sheseems to admit as much on p. 33 of her book.

21. For some remarks by Thomas S. Kuhn on the application of his work to nonscience, see his “Comment,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 11 (1969): 403–412.

22. See, for example, the writings of Whitley, Richard D., “Cognitive and Social Institutionalisationof Scientific Specialities and Research Areas,” in Whitley, Richard D., ed., Social Processes of Scientific Development (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974), pp. 69–75 Google Scholar, idem, “The Sociologyof Scientific Work and the History of Scientific Developments,” in Stuart S. Blume, ed., Perspectives in the Sociology of Science (Chichester, U.K., and New York: Wiley, 1977), pp. 21–50, “Changes inthe Social and Intellectual Organisation of the Sciences: Professionalisation and the ArithmeticIdeal,” in Mendelsohn, Everett, Weingart, Peter and Whitley, Richard, eds., The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1977), pp. 143–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Types of Science, Organisational Strategies and Patterns of Work in Research Laboratories in Different Scientific Fields,” Social Science Information 17, no. 3 (1978): 427–447; also Bohme, Gemot, “The Social Function of Cognitive Structures: A Concept of the Scientific Community within a Theory of Action,” in Knorr, Karin D., Strasser, Hermann, and Zilian, Hans Georg, eds., Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1975), pp. 205–225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. For a discussion of the case of economics, see Thomas, Mayer, “Economics as a HardScience: Realistic Goal or Wishful Thinking?” Economic Inquiry 18, no. 2 (1980), pp. 165–178.Google Scholar

24. Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1970 Google Scholar and “Reflections on my Critics,” in Imre, Lakatos and Allen, Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 244–245 Google Scholar.

25. The terms restricted and unrestricted were first used by Abel, Carl Frederick Pantin in his, The Relations between the Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar; onrestricted and configurational sciences, see Norbert, Elias, “The Sciences: Towards a Theory,” in Whitley, , ed., Social Processes, pp. 21–42 Google Scholar and Whitley, “Changes in Social and Intellectual Organisationof the Sciences. “

26. This term is used by Masterman in her discussion of Kuhn's use of the term paradigm; Margaret Masterman, “The Nature of a Paradigm,” in Lakatos and Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, p. 74.

27. Indeed, in Kuhn's initial writings a community was basically defined as those practitionerswho shared a paradigm, Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 176–177.

28. For a discussion of a particular case of the role of nonartists in the visual arts, see Mulkay, Michael and Chaplin, Elizabeth, “Aesthetics and the Artistic Career: A Study of Anomie in Fine ArtPainting,” The Sociological Quarterly 23 no. 1 (1982): 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Cornells, J. Lammers, “Mono and Poly-paradigmatic Developments in Natural and SocialSciences,” in Whitley, , ed., Social Processes, pp. 123–147 Google Scholar; Lammers mainly uses the term scientific conceptions but the alternative professional conceptions, which he also uses, is more appropriate inthis context.

30. Ibid., p. 129.

31. Cited in Joravsky, Soviet Marxism, p. 97; italics in original.

32. David, A. Hollinger, “T. S. Kuhn's Theory of Science and its Implications for History,” American Historical Review 78 no 2 (1973): 382.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., passim.

34. See, for example, Barber, Soviet Historians.

35. Lammers, “Mono and Poly-paradigmatic Developments,” p. 142.

36. Solomon, Soviet Agrarian Debate, p. 180.

37. Ibid., p. 179.

38. Ibid., pp. 32–33, 91–110.

39. See the problems experienced by G. A. Studenskii, as described by Solomon, ibid., pp. 172—173.

40. Kuhn, himself, notes that at this time the choice between paradigms is “ultimately personal and subjective,” Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 199; for further discussion, see M. Mulkay, “Some Aspects of Cultural Growth in the Natural Sciences,” in Barnes, Barry, comp., Sociology of Science (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin, 1972), pp. 126–141 Google Scholar.

41. Indeed, in some cases it may not have resulted in practice in a complete loss of autonomy;see David, Joravsky, “The Stalinist Mentality and Higher Learning,” Slavic Review 42, no. 4 (1983), p. 586.Google Scholar