em LETTERS TO THE EDITOR IN THE USSR: A STUDY OF LETTERS, AUTHORS, AND POTENTIAL USES By Mark S. Rhodes A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science 1977 ABSTRACT LETTERS TO THE EDITOR IN THE USSR: A STUDY OF LETTERS, AUTHORS, AND POTENTIAL USES By Mark S. Rhodes This research is an analysis of letters written by Soviet citizens to newspapers. Four newspapers, two All Union papers and two republic level papers were coded for the years 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, and 1972. Letters and their printed follow-ups were coded for both letter and author characteristics. A survey of the literature on letters, both Soviet and American, indicated three major directions for the research: (1) a study of author and letter characteristics and their correlation; (2) a study of the possible roles which letters to newspapers may have; (3) a study of the possible use of letters as a measure of public opinion. The correlation of author letter characteristics indicated a "division of labor" among letter writers. Blue collar workers tend to write critical letters, usually concerning local goods and servi- ces. White collar professionals, usually Party members or apparatchiki, write suggestions or explanations, thus tending to answer the blue collar questions and criticisms. Mark S. Rhodes In general, letter authors tend to be older, more urban, and more highly educated than the population. They are also overwhelm- ingly (90%) male. The Republic level papers are more supportive of the regime and more ideological in their presentation of all material. In all papers, however, there is a drop in the use of ideology until 1972 when there is a reversal to 1952-1956 levels. The study of the possible uses of letters indicated both that the letter authors expected and the papers attempted to be, problem solvers, forwarding the problems of the readership to indi- viduals or institutions that could help. A second possible use of the letters that appeared to have merit is the use of letters as a source of information for the authorities. Letter handling and follow-up procedures coupled with the range and number of complaints show this could yield a valuable body of information dealing with sources of discontent and poor administration. For the U.S. researcher the letters provide a view of the problems of policy and administration at the local level as expressed by individuals frequently at the lower end of the SES scale, thus providing a valuable insight into the micro workings of the society--an insight that with a continuing lack of other sources of opinion data may provide information on an area which would otherwise remain relatively obscure. Chapter I. REVIEW OF GENERAL LITERATURE ON THE PRESS TABLE OF CONTENTS II. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR-—U.S./USSR III. METHODOLOGY IV. DATA ANALYSIS APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY ii Page 14 84 131 224 295 Table II III IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV XVa XVb XVI XVII LIST OF TABLES Page Characteristics of Letter Writers Compared to the General Population, as Determined by 16 Research and Interview Studies . . . . . . . . . 38 Partial List of Censor's Forbidden Topics . . . 42 Hollander's Letter Topics . . . . . . . . . 52 Number of Letters Received . . . . . . . . 54 Number of Letters Received . . . . . . . . 55 Topic of Letters Received by Izvestia, 1967 . . . 66 Education and Age of Letter Authors for Izvestia, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Occupation of Letter Writers for Izvestia, 1967 . 68 Authors of Letters to Komsomolskaya Pravda . . . 72 Authors of Letters and Letter Types to Komsomolskaya Pravda . . . . . . 74 Subject: E£2!92.- . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Subject: Izvestia . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Subject: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . . . 227 Spontaneous Letter Writing X Subject . . . . . 137 Letter Type: Pravda/Izvestia . . . . . . . 139 Letter Type: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . . 140 Spontaneous Letter Writing and Letter Type . . . 143 Subject of Suggestions and Comments--Partial List . 145 iii Table XVIIIa XVIIIb XIXa XIXb XIXc XXa XXb XXc XXIa XXIb XXIc XXId XXIe XXIf XXIg XXIh XXIi XXIj XXIk XXIl XXIm XXIn XXIo Author's Use of Ideology: Pravda/Izvestia Author's Use of Ideology: Pravda Ukrainy] Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . Author Occupation: Pravda Author Occupation: Izvestia . Author Occupation: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . .. . . . . . Occupation X % Complaints: Pravda . Occupation X % Complaints: Izvestia Occupation X % Complaints: Pravda Ukrainy/ Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . . Party Occupation by Subject 08+: Pravda . Party Occupation by Subject OB-: EIEXQE.- Government Occupation by Subject 08+: EXEXQE. Government Occupation by Subject OB-: Prgvga_ Occupation X Subject: Eravga_ Occupation X Subject: Pravga_ Party Occupation by Subject 08+: Izvestia Party Occupation by Subject OB-: Izvestia Government Occupation by Subject 08+: Izvestia Government Occupation by Subject OB-: Izvestia Occupation X Subject: Izvestia . Occupation X Subject: Izvestia . Party Occupation by Subject: Pravda Ukrainy Government Occupation by Subject: Pravda Ukrainy . Occupation X Subject: Pravda Ukrainy . iv Page 146 147 228 229 230 231 232 233 235 236 237 238 239 241 243 244 245 246 247 249 251 252 253 Table XXIp XXIq XXIr XXIIa XXIIb XXIIc XXIIIa XXIIIb XXIVa XXIVb XXIVc XXVa XXVb XXVIa XXVIb 'XXVIIa XXVIIb XXVIIIa XXVIIIb XXIXa XXIXb Party Occupation by Subject: Bakinskii Rabochi Government Occupation by Subject: Bakinskii 33999h1_ . . . . . . . . . . . Occupation X Subject: Bakinskii Rabochi . Occupation X Code: Pravda Occupation X Code: Izvestia . Occupation X Code: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . . . . Sex: Pravda/Izvestia Sex: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi Occupation X % Female: Pravda. Occupation X % Female: Izvestia Occupation X % Female: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . . . . Author Education: Pravda/Izvestia . Author Education: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . , , Author Age: Pravda/Izvestia . Author Age: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi Author Geographic Area: Pravda/Izvestia . Author Geographic Area: Pravda Ukrainy] Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . Urban/Rural: Pravda/Izvestia Urban/Rural: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . Author Party Membership: Pravda/Izvestia Author Party Membership: Pravda Ukrainy/ Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . Page 255 256 257 156 157 158 159 160 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 170 171 Table XXXa XXXb XXXIa XXXIb XXXIIa XXXIIb XXXIIIa XXXIIIb XXXIIIc XXXIVa XXXIVb XXXVa XXXVb XXXVc XXXVIa XXXVIb XXXVIC XXXVIIa XXXVIIb XXXVIIC XXXVIIIa Ideology Used X Party Membership: Pravda/Izvestia Ideology Used X Party Membership: Pravda Ukrainy/ Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . . % Complaints X Party Membership: % Complaints X Party Membership: Pravda Ukrainy/ Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . Code X Party Membership: Pravda/Izvestia Code X Party Membership: Pravda Ukrainy] Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . Subject X Code: Pravda Subject X Code: Izvestia . Subject X Code: Expressed Opinions on Selected Subjects: Izvestia . . . . . . . . Expressed Opinions on Selected Subjects: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi Subject X % Complaints: Pravda . Subject X % Complaints: Izvestia Subject X % Complaints: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi Subjects of Follow-Ups: Pravda . Subjects of Follow-Ups: Izvestia Subjects of Follow-Ups: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . . Subject of Complaints and Follow-Ups: Pravda Subject of Complaints and Follow-Ups: Izvestia Follow-Ups--Action Taken: Pravda/Izvestia Follow-Up Subject X Action Taken: Pravda vi Pravda/Izvestia . Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . Pravda/ Page 173 174 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 ' 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 Table XXXVIIIb XXXVIIIc XXXIXa XXXIXb XXXXa XXXXb XXXXIa XXXXIb XXXXIc Follow-Up Subject X Action Taken: Izvestia . Follow-Ups--Action Taken: Pravda Ukrainy/ Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . Follow-Ups--Lag Time: Pravda/Izvestia Follow-Ups--Lag Time: Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . . . . Follow-Up Subject X Lag Time: Eravga_. Follow-Up Subject X Lag Time: Izvestia Subject X % Ideology Used: Pravda . Subject X % Ideology Used: Izvestia Subject X % Ideology Used: Pravda Ukrainy/ Bakinskii Rabochi . . . . . . . . vii Page 289 290 291 292 293 294 192 193 194 CHAPTER I REVIEW OF GENERAL LITERATURE ON THE PRESS On reviewing the available literature, the researcher is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that mass media influence on the political process cannot be overemphasized. The growth of mass communications is a major feature of industrial societies, and this factor makes its study one of central importance for any comparative work on large-scale social systems. Patterns of communication are a distinguishing feature of a society. These patterns also may play an important role as a channel for both dissent and reinforcement in the political system.1 As Richard Fagen notes, the social scientist working in the area of mass communications immediately becomes aware that communications, as a process, pervades politics as an activity.2 This pervasion is readily apparent in almost any aspect of the political process. Political socialization and re- cruitment, interest articulation, interest aggregation, rule making, rule application, and rule adjudication, all are performed by means 3 There is such an interdependence here, of mass communications. that many aspects of politics may be described as types of communi- cations with definite channels, authors, targets, and modifiers. In a modernized industrial society the media act as dis- seminators of information, the channels for messages from the elite to the masses basically. However, as this paper attempts to show, this flow is not necessarily undirectional. In addition to informing, the media also entertain audiences with various features dealing with humor, sports, everyday problems, etc. Closely intertwined with their activities of informing and entertaining, is the media's ability to educate and activate the population. Through its messages, the media can widen the horizons of their audience by providing information and entertainment of a more cosmopolitan nature, reducing the population's cultural isolation. This may have the effect of raising the aspi- rations of the target audience and creating markets for goods, services, and more information for further evaluation. By creating these new aspirations and focusing on specifics, a developing nation may fashion a powerful instrument for introducing change, and over- coming traditional biases and resistance to change. This same instrument, by close management, may help to contain aspirations at a relatively low level. By information and entertainment restrictions, and focusing, the media can psychologi- cally isolate the audience while activating them toward a limited number of desired practices. In dealing with the study of communications and its rela- tionship to politics, Lasswell's suggestion to find out "who says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect," is a good starting point. When looking at a nation-state in terms of its communication's pattern then, it can usually be assumed that the researcher will study the content and rate of flow of the infor- mation along various prescribed channels as it moves back and forth between the rulers and the ruled. When dealing with Soviet politics, however, there is the added burden that the researcher must try to identify channels of information that flow from the masses to the rulers. Before discussing some possibilities for such channels, a brief digression to discuss the Soviet model of mass communications may be helpful. Social Responsibility and Communist Models of the Press Comparative journalism texts, while noting that there are often significant variations in basic newspaper types from country to country and, in some cases, between areas of the same country, note four basic, principle patterns of media design.4 Often noted as the four "theories," these patterns are classified as: (l) authoritarian; (2) communist; (3) libertarian; (4) social responsi- bility. A problem in discussing the four patterns is their tendency to overlap, especially between the authoritarian and communist, and the libertarian and social responsibility patterns. The major difference between the first two models, according to the comparative journalists, is that while the communist press is owned and operated by the state, the authoritarian press is privately owned.5 A second major difference that is often mentioned is that control by govern— ment in the communist system is constant and uncompromising, whereas government control in an authoritarian system can change considerably with the particular leaders in power. This second point is overstated and may give a false picture of the Soviet media system, as will be discussed later. The other two theories, the libertarian and social responsi- bility, also overlap in many respects. Texts on the subject state that most nations which accept the libertarian theory consider responsibility of the media to the public as a part of the theory. Since in any society the social and political structure determines to a great extent what responsibilities the media owe its society, the media of every nation may consider themselves to be socially responsible, the responsibility pattern is usually described as an evolved form of the libertarian pattern.6 A very brief discussion of its most important aspects notes that it can be traced back to seventeenth century England and the American colonies. The liber- tarian theory rose from the view of man as a rational being with inherently natural rights, one of which was the pursuit of truth. In the eighteenth century, exponents of this view, notably John Milton and John Locke, insisted that those who would interfere with this right should be restrained, and governments should, therefore, not censor written materials. Under this theory the press functions to uncover and present the truth, and therefore, cannot so function if subject to external controls. Truth is assured since it will be regulated by all members of the free society who will support those sources who furnish accurate reporting and refuse to support those who do not. The obvious faults in this logical reasoning led to the evolution of the social responsibility theory which is a mid-twentieth century concept. It goes beyond the libertarian pattern in that it places a great many more moral and ethical restrictions on the media. "Responsibility" is to be emphasized instead of "freedom." Drawn, for the most part, from a 1947 report and a book published in that same year by a private group which studied the U.S. media, the Hutchins Commission asserted that technological change called for 7 According to this commission, the a change in media philosophy. mass media, because of their pervasive impact in all areas, have gone beyond such "libertarian" concepts as the "search for truth," and the "press' right to access information." Instead, the new theory states that the importance of mass media in a modern society makes it absolutely necessary that an obligation of social responsi- bility be imposed on them. In the original libertarian theory, the media are responsible for the role of informational link between government and people. Any break in the informational link caused by governmental censorship, or secrecy, or by deliberately falsified government news releases, tends to invalidate the concept of freedom of information. A liber- tarian system would measure its effectiveness by how well informed on government activity its public is. According to the Hutchins Commission, press freedom is limited by a social responsibility to report facts accurately and in a meaningful context. This implies a recognition by the media that they must perform a public service to justify their existance, and invites advocation of a regulatory system to watch the actions of the media and keep them functioning properly. Although the tension and obvious conflicts between these two systems have hardly been settled as recent developments show, this simplified outline can serve as a synopsis of present day thought on the ideal media systems as considered in the U.S. and Western Europe, and as a context for discussion of the communist pattern. Marxist-Leninist theory sees the media as a channel through which the party can influence the masses, communicate with them, and direct them in the building of a new society. From Lenin, the present CPSU considers its position as resting upon a balance of 8 Because of the rapid change imposed upon coercion and persuasion. the society, coercion has been, and is necessary, against segments or classes of the population who would threaten the party's program for progress. Persuasion is used to influence the larger remaining social groups. The media are used to correct a dichotomy which exists between the party and the masses. In viewing the "toilers," Lenin had two basic views: (1) mankind has limitless possibilities for perfectibility, (2) the masses are lacking in class consciousness and organization. Because of the lack of consciousness and organization, the masses are unable, by themselves, to attain real progress toward their great potential beyond what is scornfully labeled as "trade unionism." To fill this void, the party offers itself as the "general staff of the working class," which through its access to basic historical truths and prognoses is able to view beyond what might temporarily, and falsely, be seen as the workers best interests, to programs that will truly benefit them in the future. The media are assigned the task of both facilitating the CPSU leadership and mobilizing the minds of the workers toward a higher social evolutionary state. With these dual tasks in mind, the tasks of mass agitator- propogandist, organizer, and critic, which are assigned to the media in almost every Soviet book or article on the subject are more easily understood. The media's task as mass agitator-propagandist is education with the ultimate aim of producing the New Soviet Man who is capable of living in harmony with his fellow human beings in the ideal society of Communism. Both agitation and propaganda are instruments of education but the message and target are different. The classic definition of the difference was given by Plekhanov though popularized by Lenin in What Is To Be Done? According to this definition the propagandist gives many ideas to a few, while the agitator gives a few ideas to many. Propaganda serves as a pre-condition for agitation and a legitimizer for the regime by acting as an interpretation of the sacred truths, thus attempting to influence behavior by affecting the manner in which a mass audience perceives and ascribes meaning to the world. Propaganda is therefore theoretical, profound, and understood in its entirety by only a few members of the media's audience. Because the vast majority of the masses can grasp only basic fundamentals of the intricate propaganda offerings, agitation is used as a complementary form of education. As propaganda requires profound thought and appeals to the intellect through logical constructions, agitation attempts to illicite a more immediate response by appealing to sentiment with quick, short, concrete examples. Headlines, slogans, photographs, and cartoons provide useful vehicles for agitation. The task of mass organizer is always given high priority by Soviet journalists in any discussion of press functions. Lenin always considered the establishment of a centrally controlled press as an object of top priority. He clearly expressed his feelings on the subject in an 1899 letter: --we must have as our immediate aim the founding of a Party organ that will appear regularly and be closely connected with all local groups . . . without such an organ, local work will remain narrowly 'amateurish.‘ The formation of the Party--if the correct representation of that Party in a certain newspaper is not original--will to a considerable extent remain bare words. An economic struggle that is not united by a central organ cannot become the class struggle of the entire Russian proletariat. It is impossible to conduct a political struggle if the Party as a whole fails to make statements on all questions of policy and to give direction to the various manifestations of the struggle. The organization and disciplining of the revolutionary forces and the development of revolutionary techniques are impossible without the discussion of all these questions in a central organ, without the collective elaboration of certain forms and rules for the conduct of affairs, without the establish- ment--through the central organ--of every Party member's responsibility to the entire Party. Clearly, Lenin is following the call of Liebknecht to "Learn, propagandise, organize," all through the central organ. Through a central party press, revolutionary thought can be focused on the issues and tactics that the leadership desires, thus organizing a group with a common bond of ideas, tactics, and purpose. The idea expressed in this quotation and echoed in his What Is To Be Done? is that the paper can form the basic core around which revolutionary activity may be formed. This aspect of organization is clearly expressed in the following example: A paper is not merely a collective propagandist and collective agitator, it is also a collective organizer. In this respect it can be compared to the scaffolding erected around a building in construction; it marks the contours of the structure and facilitates communication between the builders, permitting them to distribute the work and to view the common results achieved by their organized labor. With the aid of, and around, a paper, there will automatically develop an organization that will engage, not only in local activities, but also in regular, general work; it will teach its members carefully to watch political events, to estimate their importance and their in- fluence on the various sections of the population, and to devise suitable methods of influencing these events through the revolutionary party. 0 Here the idea of the party organizer is clearly illustrated. The press has an organizing function for elites that is useful and necessary before, during, and after the revolution. For non-elites after the October Revolution, the collective organization function became one of economic re-education and reorganization of the masses. This function was to be performed by acquainting all citizens with the new economic programs, exchanging the various local experiences and techniques, and by comparison of local achieve- ments, inspire competition. Lenin felt that the media were an expremely important and largely untapped resource in the field of economic development: We have scarcely yet started on the enormous, difficult but rewarding task of organizing competition between communes, of introducing accounting and publicity in the process of the production of grain, clothes and other things, of trans- forming dry, dead, bureaucratic accounts into living examples, some repulsive, others attractive. . . . The press must serve as an instrument of socialist construction, give publicity to the successes achieved by the model communes in all their details, must study the causes of these successes, the methods of management these communes employ.n 10 Through propaganda and agitation combined with central organi- zation through the press, the population was to be mobilized and activated to accomplish the economic tasks ahead. At the same time the press was to emphasize competition and emulation of successful examples of enterprise. The third function of the media, as a critic for the new society, became important. Party work had long been held up for scrutiny and debate under the policy of "kritika-samo-kritika," criticism and self criticism, but now the press presented examples of how not to do it, along with the "how to." The press was encouraged to "put on the 'black list' those communes which persist in the 'traditions of capitalism,‘ i.e., "'2 The role of the anarchy, laziness, disorder and profiteering. media was to expose the deficient groups to criticism from below, assuming the role of guardian against the incompetent or immoral. In both forms of criticism there are obviously certain limits to the subjects and individuals that may be criticized. The regime, its ideological foundations and heros, and basic policies may not be criticized directly. Indirectly, criticism may be made by singling out local occurrances that point out difficulties with a certain program. The rule in handling such criticism is "Criticize "‘3 The result is that the media expose numerous But Don't Generalize. examples of corruption, mis-management, incompetence, etc., but no general conclusion is drawn concerning them. The basic and most important instrument for the gathering of criticism and examples from the "grass roots," is the letter to the editor. 11 As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, whatever the theoretical pattern the media operates within, this basic activities are to inform, to entertain, to educate, and to activate. Obviously in the different media patterns the amount of emphasis put on each of these activities, and the form in which they are presented varies greatly. Soviet and Western journalists have varied opinions con- cerning what form education, information, and even entertainment could take. Concerning differences pertaining to forms of activation of the population, the literature on letters to the editor is surprisingly similar considering the theoretically opposite poles from which the two sides originate. Activation by direct participation is the substance of the letters in both patterns. From the libertarian/ responsibility theory it is expected that the free, rational citizen, taking an interest in his social and political environment, will use the available channel to register his complaints and criticisms, and be seconded or criticized by others in the free market of ideas which the media are duty bound to provide. In the communist pattern, letters are expected as a natural and necessary adjunct to the tasks of agitation/propaganda, organizing, and criticizing. The media serve to answer questions on theoretical and practical matters that agitprop put before the population. Successes must be reported, competition and emulation fostered, and failures uncovered and the culprits unmasked. The remainder of the paper will focus on a comparison of the letters of the two patterns of media. First a discussion of the literature and research on the subject in the U.S. and Western 12 Europe; then a discussion of the subject as presented in Soviet journalism and social science will be presented. Finally, a research project involving the collection and analysis of a much larger and more varied sample of Soviet letters than has previously been worked with by Western researchers will be offered. Chapter I--Footnotes 1Alex Inkeles and Kent Geiger, "Critical Letters to the Soviet Press," American Sociological Review, 17:694-703 (1952). 2Richard R. Fagen, Politics and Communications (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966), p. 8. 3G. A. Almond and James Coleman, The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 4-5. 4d. C. Merrill, The Foreign Press (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970), p. 20. 51bid. , p. 21. 51m. 7Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press (Chicago: 1947); William E. Horking, Freedom of the Press (Chicago, 1947). 8Alex Inkeles, Public Opinion in Soviet Russia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), Ch. I. 9V. I. Lenin, "Letter to Wfirtenberg in 1899," Lenin Miscellany,III (Moscow: 1970), pp. 50-1. 10V. I. Lenin, "Where to Begin May, 1901," Selected Works II (New York: 1943), pp. 19f, 21f. 11V. I. Lenin, "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government," Collected Works, Vol. 27 (New York: Praeger Books, 1965), p. 260. 12 13 Ibid., p. 261. Selected Works, 92, 913,, p. 370. 13 CHAPTER II LETTERS TO THE EDITOR--U.S./USSR Structure of the Press System-~USSR In any discussion of the Soviet press, it is necessary to preface an analysis of newspaper content with an overview of the structure of the system which certainly has a great effect upon the types of materials each paper prints, and may possibly affect the materials received from its readers. This factor is important, for as will be discussed in detail later in the chapter, a principle function of the newspaper is to continuously sample the opinions of its readers. As with the Party and government apparatus, the Soviet newspaper system is structured in a number of geographic subdi- visions: 1. The All-Union or Central level which prints national papers for distribution throughout the USSR. 2. The Union Republic level which prints papers for each of the fifteen republics. 3. The krai and oblast levels which print papers for the subdivisions of the republics, similar to provinces and counties. 14 15 4. The autonomous republic and autonomous oblast levels which print papers for subdivisions of republics which have identity as the territory of specific minority national groups. 5. The city level which prints papers for that specific metropolitan area. City raions (districts) may also publish their own papers. 6. The district and production administration of collective and state farm level which prints papers for the agricultural units in its area. 7. The press of the various industrial enterprises, educa- tional institutions, and collective and state farms.1 Papers below the oblast level are usually referred to as the "lower" press. For each of these subdivisions, both the Party and govern- ment apparatus may have a paper serving as its official organ, or one paper may serve as organ for both simultaneously. Some state sponsored organizations may also have a paper, reflecting its administration at that level. The trade union and Komsomol are examples of such organizations. Generally, the higher the adminis- trative level the more likely the group is to have a paper. Only the Party and government always sponsor papers at each level. The All-Union papers, apart from their distribution throughout the USSR, also serve a function as a model of style and content for the papers of the other levels to follow. Thus the papers at the local trade unions would look to Irug, the union's national level paper, as a model for story selection, setup, and "line" to follow on sensitive matters. Other levels of the Komsomol 16 press should look to Komsomolskaya Pravda for inspiration in such matters. All papers, however, defer to the influence and prestige of all central organ of the CPSU--Pravda, which serves as the ultimate authority for style and content. Republic newspapers, officially the press representatives of Party and governmental authority, are usually offered both in Russian and the language's native to the republic. Hollander gives the following example of republic level papers printed in the Tadzhik republic in Central Asia: Sovietskiy Tadzhikistan (Russian) Tochikiston Soveti (Tadzhik) Soveit Tochikistoni (Uzbek) Komsomolets Tadzhikistana (Russian) Komsomoli Tochikiston (Tadzhik) Pioneri TochikistonETTadzhik) Maorie ga_Madaniyat (Tadzhik)2 Suprisingly, the Russian, RSFSR Soviet Republic, by far the largest and most diverse of the fifteen republics, has generally fewer republic papers.3 The reasoning is that All-Union level papers serve the same purpose and therefore a large number of republic level papers would merely be wasteful redundancies. The size of the Soviet journalistic effort is indicated by figures for the RSFSR which has over 3,000 newspapers printed, reaching over 61,100,000 readers, and the Ukrainian Republic which has over 2,000 papers reaching 16,500,000 readers.4 The leading Soviet daily, Egaaga, is one of the world's largest papers, with a circulation of 7,500,000.5 In order to administer this vast press system, an extensive and elaborate bureaucracy carries on the planning, directing, l7 conducting, and supervising. The control over the content is both complex and often filled with redundancies. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is of course the final authority on any issue. Officially, the State Committee of the Press, a body of the Council of Ministers, has authority over all publishing matters and thus serves as censor, but as a state body it is always subject to direction by the Party apparat. In fact, Central Committee guidance may take the form of directives to the editors on the necessity for certain “campaigns" where emphasis is needed, and the treatment of certain news items, both foreign and domestic. Specifically, as well, the Central Committee CPSU appoints the editor-in-chief, his deputy, the responsible secretary of the editorial staff, all editors, and chiefs of departments. The remaining colleagues are selected by the editors and the editorial colleagues. "The Central Committees of union republic communist parties, oblast and krai committees appoint the leading workers of the republic, oblast and krai newspapers working under their control; city committees of the party; leading workers of city newspapers; raion party committees leading workers of local newspapers; factory, plant, higher educational institutions and other Party committees multi-copy newspapers."6 The power to appoint the editorial staff of every paper in the USSR is obviously a powerful check. The editorial staff's work is checked for positive work and criticized for its shortcomings by several devices; (1) Surveys of the press, an analysis of the content 18 of the paper over a specified period which the Party unit with jurisdiction sends to the editors; (2) Review of professional conduct by the Union of Journalists which may remove an editor for not meeting the standards of a vague code of ethics; (3) Local Party Central Commission, (the editor is very often a party member and therefore subject to this form is discipline); (4) Local government officials who are also usually Party members.7 Structure of Newspaper Content--USSR Soviet papers are only four to six pages long, but with much more space for editorial type matter than comparable Western papers because they carry no advertising. The small size is probably due to factors including a general paper shortage and the difficulty of maintaining full control over the content of larger papers.8 Another of the more striking aspects of Soviet papers is the lack of what to most Westerners is news. Reports on events that occurred the day before, both national and international, take up only a small fraction of a Soviet paper, less than 20%. The idiosyncrasies of the Soviet press tend to produce special reading habits among the public. To become informed, the public that is in the "know" reads the paper bottom up, from back to front. Opinion polls tend to confirm this. The readers tend to be interested in human interest, sports, social problems, morals, and less interested in ideological content.9 The readers remember the big events, such as the mid-air breakup of the TU-l44 at Paris in 1973, Zhukov's ouster in 1957, Nixon's scheduled arrival time in 19 1972, and Solzhenitsyn's expulsion. These were all innocuous little ‘0 The back page also features items on the back page of Paaxga, sports, chess, cultural news, and occasional human interest features and satirical exposes of incompetence or malfeasance, and the TV listings. In Eragga_the principal foreign news appears on page five, with factual information coming from various Egaxga_correspondents. Usually, almost 25% of the page is devoted to daily and rather routine reports from Soviet allies in the "Socialist Camp." Another 25% usually goes to flamboyant articles concerning various struggles versus imperialists throughout the world. Authoritative commentary on world affairs also appears here along with short travel assays. From page four onward, the going gets heavier in 353393, On page four is often material continued from the front page, the text of official speeches or announcements, commentaries on inter- national affairs, and long reports from foreign communists. Page three carries domestic news on all subjects, often by guest writers on their fields of expertise. Letters to the editor and investigative reporting are also found here. The second page contains the Party news, which is required reading for CPSU members. Articles by Party officials, staff members, and letters, discuss new methods and lessons from the past. The interpretations and emphasis given here are those that will tend to become adopted throughout the USSR by local Party groups. The front page usually is dominated by one or two photo- graphs of workers accompanied by an article on a particular farm 20 or factory, reflecting Lenin's view of the media as discussed earlier. These pictures and stories appear under a bold headline which reflects an agitational slogan--"Introduce and Assimilate Capacity More "1] The first page also contains a daily editorial. Quickly. important official news such as speeches and decrees, and short news items. Structure of the Newspaper Staff--USSR The staff of a Soviet paper is divided into functional departments responsible for a particular section of the paper. The number of departments may vary with each paper. All-Union papers may have fifteen or more departments, republic papers about ten, oblast and krai six to eight, and the lower press two or three.12 Each department is responsible for the material dealing with its subject. Examples of departments found in most general papers (as opposed to specialized papers) are: (1) Party Life which deals with Party articles; (2) Industry and Transport; (3) Agriculture; (4) Soviet Constitution; (5) Propaganda; (6) Culture and Daily Life; (7) Ideology; (8) Local Information; (9) Letters to the Editor; (10) Staff Correspondents; (11) Special Correspondents.13 Overseeing and coordinating the activities of the various departments are the editor-in-chief and the secretariat which usually consists of the secretary, a deputy secretary, a literary secretary, and two or three literary workers.14 The editor-in-chief is responsible for the ideological content and general effectiveness of the paper. He, along with 21 his deputies if the paper is large enough, draws up the plan by which the paper is to be run. He is responsible for the selection of personnel not selected by the local Party unit, and in addition to being responsible for coordinating the various departments, supervises the actual technical process of publication, and oversees financial matters.15 The secretariat appears to function as the actual coordinating center for all the work of the paper and final preparation of materials for publication. With this task, correctors, illustrators, photo- graphers, and other workers dealing with the design and organization of the paper, are under the direction of the secretariat.16 In order to guide the editor-in-chief and his assistants in the selection of materials not directly submitted to them by the Party or government apparat, the Party has furnished seven principles to serve as a guideline. Most of the principles can easily be interpreted as logical extensions of the tasks of the press mentioned earlier, and came from Lenin's ideas which were formulated during his experiences with Iakga, and the illegal underground Bolshevik press. 1. "Partiinost": or "partyness" is the acceptance of the CPSU as the authority on all matters and the complete acceptance of these decisions. The paper, as an instrument of the Party, should strive to evaluate every event and social phenomena in light of Party policy. A Soviet journalism text describes "Partiinost" in the following way: 22 Lenin said that such nonpartisanship is a hypocritical invention of the bourgeoise. . . . Partiinost gives our press powerful ideological force. Our press is 'party' in character because in expressing the ideas of the Party it expresses the interests of the people. 7 2. "Vysokaya Ideinost": or high ideological content means that the press has a major roll in the disemination of propaganda and agitation for the education of the members of the society. This function includes the constant use of references to the "classics" of the communist movement, as well as current interpretations the leadership of the CPSU has given to current events and trends. The paper should not only reflect the interests of the Party, but should be permeated with the spirit of the Party, its teachings and its goals. As described by the Soviets: Our press ideologically arms the people, gives them spiritual food which helps them to see the significance of internal and external events to know well the tasks and the ways of implementing the great ideals of Communist Society. Our press daily educates the workers in the spirit of high idealism and intolerance toward any manifestation of bourgeoise ideoloQY; it leads the entergetic battle with the surygvals of capitalism in the consciousness of the people. 3. Patriotism: the Soviets place a great deal of emphasis on recalling the great deeds of the past by Party, government, police, and military. The Second World War with its tremendous horrors and sacrifices, and its concomitant sense of purpose and solidarity is a favorite theme for "flashback" articles and features with recollections of old soldiers each year on the anniversary of important battles, such as Moscow, Leningrad, Smolensk, Kursk, 19 Stalingrad, and Berlin. Each year as well brings stories and 23 letters from those who remember the various high points of the revolution. The press is also called upon to present the USSR as an object of international veneration and envy to rouse the pride of the Soviet people: The press, radio, and television are called upon to daily inculcate in the Soviet people, by means of concrete examples, a limitless love for the motherland, devotion to the Party and the government, to develop a consciousness of social duty, to show in a lively and attractive manner examples of selfless labor and creativity for the sake of our society. Our activity is rich with examples of patriotism of Soviet people. To propagandize these examples, to make them accessable to the 20 broad masses, is one of the noble duties of Soviet journalists. 4. Truthfulness: is the obligation to transmit information truthfully. This means that the journalist must give the correct interpretation to each event and story. Objectivity is a bourgeoise concept and a fault in Western journalism which is not to be repeated. The Soviet journalist eschews ambiguity. Men, governments, programs, institutions, and events are either good or bad and must be correctly interpreted. It is the paper's duty, through the responsibility of the editor-in-chief, to ensure the necessary contacts with the Party organization to attain this "correctness" of interpretation. The Soviet press is a truthful press. It follows the advice of V. I. Lenin in always demanding from colleagues and from the corrgspondents of the press the correct eluci- dation of events. 5. "Narodnost": or "populism" is an expression of the need for a popular orientation of the press. This is expressed in the Soviet constitution as the right of each citizen to make use of the press. Materials for the exercise of this right are to be made 24 22 available to the citizens who wish them. In order to carry out this obligation practically: In the Soviet Union the papers and journals, radio and television belong to the garty, soviets, komsomol, unions, and soc1a1 organ12at1ons. 6. "Massovost": or "massness" combines with the concept of "narodnost" to mean that the paper is accessible to any citizen and maintains direct and constant contact with the masses. The papers are to literally function amid the people by encouraging actual participation by non-journalists in furnishing materials for the press. 24 The use of "millions" of the worker-peasant correspondents' (rab- selkors) reports and the vast numbers of citizan letters is an expression of "massness": The massness of our press is expressed in the fact that broad strata of workers take an active part in it.25 7. "Kritika i_Samo-Kritika": criticism and self-criticism is a call to criticize the shortcomings of the Party organizations, the government, the society and the work of the media itself. As noted by Hollander, the process generally takes the following course: "certain events or situations are chosen for 'exposure' by the . journalist; his article outlines the shortcomings, and identifies those he thinks are responsible for the existing state of affairs. This, basically, is the 'criticism.' The correct response, completing the process, is called 'self—criticism': The person or persons accused admit their errors, state their repentance, and "26 outline measures for correcting the situation. Because the journalist is an agent of the Party and has been "cleared" to do 25 the story, or has been instructed to do the story (as will be mentioned later, this is not always true), it would appear politically incorrect to challenge the process. The usefulness of the criticism, both from "above," i.e., from official sources, and “below," i.e., from common citizens, is given a great deal of emphasis by the Party. Bogdanov and Vyazemskiy underline this concern by reminding the Soviet jour- nalist that the Party Central Committee has ordered the use of kritika-samo-kritika for "a systematic and purposeful conduct of the battle . . . against idleness, bureaucratism, stagnation, bribery, (which) plunder national property."27 Letters Literature--U.S. In the United States, letter writing has always been a technique of political expression. Jefferson was a prolific letter writer and set the fashion for other elites to follow. The tradition of letter writing from the electorate to political figures also has a long tradition. George Washington, like Dwight Eisenhower, was urged to accept a draft for the presidency by a "deluge" of letters 29 from private citizens. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, however, only a narrow elite practiced political letter writing. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, the letter writing electorate had expanded its social base. Available information indicates that Lincoln's mail came from a great variety of social groups: "preponderantly Mr. Lincoln's correspondents were composed of the laity, that diverse, unclassifiable, resourceful, self- assumed and informal group which constituted the American public. 26 30 Because Of this last category many more were lowly, illiterate." of a dearth of information, it is impossible to discover whether the expanded social composition of presidential mail during the Civil War was a temporary phenomenon or part of a long term trend. The available information does note that in the 1930's, however, the volume of mail received at the White House (and Congress) climbed to the high levels associated with such mail today. To illustrate; calculating the rate of presidential mail as the number of letters written annually per 10,000 literate adults in the population, Lincoln's rate during the Civil War was about 44, Wilson's mail during World War I was a little higher at 47, but Roosevelt's mail during the depression in the late 1930's was at a rate of 160. This high increase in quantity is even more pronounced when the rates during non-crisis periods are compared. During comparative periods of normalcy, McKinley's mail in 1900 represented a rate of 4.7, Hoover's mail before the crash measured 11.8, and Roosevelt's mail in the late 1930's represented a rate of 111. The size of FDR's political correspondence from the public was unprecedented, and 3' The growth of importantly, this level has declined very little. literacy, mass media and information, the increasing impact of Federal level programs on the electorate's every day life, and the public encouragement of letter writing by leading political figures have probably all been factors in increasing the mail flow. Leila Sussman in her study of mass political letter writing concluded that fifteen to twenty percent of the American electorate have at some time addressed a political letter to a public official, 27 and that the vast majority of the letters were spontaneous, and not stimulated by pressure groups.32 As to its affect, a study by Martin Kriesberg showed that Congressmen ranked mail first and public opinion polls fourth among five sources of such information, whereas administrators did the 33 The fact that the mail comes from their own constituents. opposite. while the administrators, whos "constituency" is better measured by nation-wide polls, accounts for the difference. Sussman feels that the influence of mail on public officials, unless obviously pressure group mail, is enhanced by the fact that letters are not merely responsive, but may signal a clue to the existance of a new problem. For officials removed from personal contact with the electorate, these letters are sometimes the first indication that such a situation exists.34 Like the studies dealing with mail to political figures, the literature on letters to the editor is about forty years old and suprisingly scanty. In a 1937 study, Schuyler Foster and Carl Friedrich looked at letters printed in a Boston paper over a three month period, (N = 169).35 The study was concerned with providing generalizations concerning letter writing and letter authors, and a variety of topics from child labor to the current African War were considered. The study attempted to discover whether the concern of the letter authors reflected the concern of a significant portion of the community, or were merely isolated individuals. 28 Two of their findings are echoed in Sussman's work on letter writing to public figures and in later studies on letters to the editor: (1) The newspaper itself provides the most frequent stimulus to write to the editor. The majority of published letters referred to news items, other letters or to editorials; (2) Most letters convey a negative response to something or someone.36 This negativism in letter writing is found both in studies which deal with letters as a whole, i.e., without regard to specific topic, and studies which focus on particular issues. Because of such findings, a 1964 article in Journalism Quarterly entitled "Functions of Editorials and Letters to the Editor," formulated two propositions: (1) One of the functions of the newspaper editorial in a democratic society is to stimulate public debate and discussion of important issues; (2) One of the functions of the letters to the editor in a democratic society is that of catharsis.37 A letter column gives the irate, the antagonist, and the displeased a chance to speak out and be heard. The idea of the editorial functioning so as to foster debate and discussion is a logical outgrowth of the prevaling press theory and entirely compatible with it. The catharsis affect is less expected given the premises of libertarian/responsibility theory, from which one would, ideally, expect a constant flow of ideas, a positive and negative to flow across the letters page. Instead, it appears that individuals are stimulated basically by frustration and anger, often in reaction to something they've read in the same paper, to take the time and effort to write. 29 This finding is verified by the three other studies, Forsythe (1950),38 Tarrant (1957),39 and Vacin (1965),40 which deal with the motivations of authors of letters to the editor. The studies use terms such as "blowing off steam," "getting something off my chest," and "a safety valve," to describe the motivations of the authors. The majority of studies dealing with letter writing deal with demographic analysis of the author population. Only sixteen studies dealing with the characteristics of letter writers have been done, and only eight of these dealt with letters to the editor. With so few studies done, it is both feasible and useful to look more closely at each of these eight letter to the editor studies. The other eight will be mentioned briefly, and their findings summarized along with the others in Table I for comparison. Letters to the Editor--U.S. 1. Sydney Forsythe (1950)41 sent a short questionnaire to fifty-five people who had written letters to the editor to the Louisville Courier-Journal. His sample was taken by unspecified means from persons who had from one to twenty-three letters published during the previous year. The forty-four individuals who responded accounted for nearly 20% of all letters printed that year in the Courier-Journal: 385 out of 2,007, or about nine letters per person. The median age of the authors was fifty-nine, and only two were under forty. There were forty-two men and two women, and all but two of the authors were native white Americans. Through an 3O unspecified process it was determined that the respondents tended to be conservative in their political, religious, and marital views. The average letter writer had lived in the Louisville area for eighteen years, and was well educated with an average of one year of college. Thirty-five of the forty-two men were either business or professional men or white collar workers. 2. W. D. Tarrant (1957)42 interviewed forty people who had published letters in the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard. He found that as the frequency of letter writing increased, so did factors such as conservatism, number of books read, age of writer, number of children, ownership of a house, and occasions of seeking public office. Two-thirds of those who had written to the newspaper had also written at least one letter to their congressman. Compared to the general population, Tarrant found 1etter writers to be better educated, less mobile, more religious, more mature, more individualistic, and older. 3. As part of a study of the 1964 presidential election, Converse, Clausen, and Miller (1965)43 conducted 1,400 interviews. Among the questions asked was whether the respondent had written a letter to a newspaper editor during the campaign. It turned out that 15% of the sample had reported writing to a public official--a datum very close_to the findings of several national surveys. Three percent had written to a newspaper. However, when analyzed in terms of the total number of letters written, three percent of the respondents accounted for 31 two-thirds of the letters to public officials, and one-half of one percent of the people wrote two-thirds of the letters to the editor. About 70% of the letter writers were supporters of Barry Goldwater, and 30% supporters of Lyndon Johnson. The non-letter writers were divided in about the same ratio as the actual vote: Johnson 60%, Goldwater 40%. On two questions designed to indicate the conservative feelings of the respondents, the 1etter-writer appeared significantly more conservative than the non-writer. On an eleven-point scale of over-all ideology, the letter writers were heavily conservative-- the most extreme conservative position being the mode-~while the non-writer scored in the normal distribution. The authors of the study classified the letter writers as being prosperous and well educated. 4. In an analysis of reaction to a 1962 controversy in Oregon as to whether communist Gus Hall should be allowed to speak at state-supported colleges and universities, H. Davis and G. Rarick analyzed editorials and readers letters on the issue in twenty-one Oregon daily newspapers.44 The letters sample on the issue was 126; only letters actually printed were used. I An examination of the letters revealed that 81, or 64%, of them expressed opposition to Hall being permitted to speak at state- supported colleges. This was true even though eleven of the papers took the opposite stand editorially, while only six agreed with the majority, and four took no stand on the issue editorially. 32 Davis and Rarick found that the editors, no matter which side they supported publicly, printed approximately the same percentage of letters pro and con. Out of 108 letters published by the eleven papers "for" permission to Hall, 64% were against the policy. Similarly, eleven of seventeen (65%) of the letters in the "opposing" papers were against the visits. No specific demographic information on authors was attempted by the researchers, but their analysis led them to believe that the highly negative nature of the letters indicate that a major function of letter writing was the psychological release or catharsis the author gained. 5. Gary Vacin (1965) studied letters published in three Kansas daily newspapers, the Topeka Daily Capital, the Wichita gagla, and the Hutchinson Nawa, during March of 1964 in research designed to discover both author characteristics and motivations.45 Vacin mailed questionnaires to the 186 writers and had a response from 123 (66%). All age groups were represented in the sample, but middle aged and elderly (exact age unspecified) predominated. Thirty-nine of the respondents were over 55 and only seven were 18 or younger. The authors were well educated, averaging two years of college. Fifty-seven (46%) were college graduates and 24 (20%) had earned post-graduate degrees. Only 21 (16%) had not completed high school. 33 The sample was overwhelmingly (75%) male, and non-mobile in residence, having lived in their present residence an average of 20 years. Almost half (47%) were classified as white-collar or profes- sional, with housewives (17%) and retirees (13%) constituting the next largest occupational groups. The letter writers tended to be politically active and Republican (46%) more than Democratic (28%). They were also very well read, 113 (92%) read at least one daily newspaper regularly. Thirty-six letter writers had written only one letter to the editor; 28 had written more then ten, and one claimed to have written 2,000 such letters. Vacin concluded that the authors were not "cranks" or "crack—pots" in their motivations for writing, but had the conviction that they were affecting events, either as a direct result of their letters, or of the public opinion they felt their letters helped to mold. 6. Sidney Verba, et a1. (1967), utilized data collected by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago 46 Using an for a study of public opinion and the Vietnam War. interview sample of 239 letter writers and 1,251 non-writers, Verba compared the two groups views on an "Escalation Scale," a "De- escalation Scale," and on a scale of preference of alternative actions. Following the previous literature, the author expected to find the letter writers to be more conservative and pro-escalation, 34 but in fact found no difference of scores between the letter writers and non-letter writers on any of the scales. Verba and his associates realized that their findings in this regard are virtually unique and added that the complexity and ambiguity of the war could explain the similarity. And, to the extent that the war had involved the population more than any other issue in recent years, this type of event is probably unrepresenta- tive. 7. David Grey and Trevor Brown (1970) utilized content analysis of two California newspapers, the Redwood City Tribune, and the San Mateo Iimaa, for four time periods before and after the 1968 party presidential conventions, with a total of 721 47 The researchers estimated that the letters printed letters. represent two-thirds of all the letters reviewed by the two papers. The researchers found surprisingly little interest expressed in the Nixon vs. Humphrey campaign. The only two candidates who "excited" any volume of mail were Wallace and McCarthy. The general apathy was illustrated by the fact that the local controversies over sex education and a topless dancer's candidacy for student body president of Stanford University received more coverage. Letters containing pro-republican comments were in the majority, although, the area tends to be liberal and democratic. Because the letters that were not printed remained unavilable, the researchers were unsure whether this reflected the authors of the letters or the bias of the editors. 35 The letters clearly tended to be negative rather than posi- tive--i.e., against something--rather than for it or neutral. Although no specific data was presented, Grey and Brown suggest that their sample is older, richer, better educated, more rooted in their community, and more conservative than the general population. Characteristics which suggest an "articulate minority." 8. Byron Lander (1972) studied 188 letters sent to the Kent Record-Courier from May 7 to May 26, 1970, dealing with the killing of four Kent State University students by national guardsmen on May 4.48 The author stated that he had chosen the Record-Courier because of its emphasis on local opinion and its policy of printing all letters it receives. Lander assumes, based on past studies apparently, that the letter writers are "middle aged and middle class conservative white Americans." Using content analysis the researcher found, apparently using key word and/or phrases (no method is specified), that a majority (51%) expressed hostility toward the students or youth, and praise for the guard (48%), while nine percent expressed sympathy for the students and six percent were critical of the guard. Other Letters Data--U.S. 1,2,3. Each of the three major public opinion polling organizations has inquired briefly into letter-writing behavior. The data in Table I is based on the responses for the Gallup Poll, Roper Poll, and National Opinion Research Center (1957), to the 36 question of "Have you ever written to your congressman or senator in Washington?"49 4. Martinez (1950) interviewed one-fifth of the 500 Italian- American families in Elmira, New York, to see whether they had responded to an Italian-American campaign to write letters to friends and relatives in Italy urging them not to vote Communist.50 5. Jeanette Sayre (1939) studied 26,000 letters written to "5] On the basis a popular radio program, "Town Meeting of the Air. of the quality of paper, the style and construction of the letter, and certain contextual factors, she attempted to glean author characteristics. 6. Leo Bogart (1949) analyzed 744 fan letters written to the New York Philharmonic Orchestra radio program during the 1948-49 concert season.52 About one-third of the letters were unsolicited, the remainder came in response to requests from the program's host to comment on certain aspects of the program. Based on stylistic qualities of the letters (no methodology reported) he attempted to determine the social characteristics of the authors. 7. L. E. Gleek (1940) analyzed several hundred letters received by two congressmen over repeal of the arms embargo act in 53 Gleek attempted to develop demographic data by using the 1940. writer's name to divine sex and nationality, and socio-economic status from the quality of paper and the location of the writer's home. 37 8. J. A. Klempner (1966) interviewed 134 people who had written letters to Xerox concerning a $4,000,000 series of programs on the United Nations which caused the ire of the John Birch Society. Seventy of the authors had written negative letters to Xerox, and 64 positive.54 Summary: U.S. Letters Literature In Table I the findings of the 16 studies are compared on their demographic findings. From these few studies a few conclusions may be drawn con- cerning letter to the editor authors in the United States: 1. Writers of opinion-letters are older than the average of the general population. 2. Writers of opinion-letters have a higher income than the average of the general population. 3. Writers of opinion-letters are better educated than the average of the general population. 4. Writers of opinion-letters are more conservative, politically, than the average of the general population. 5. It seems reasonable to suspect, although there is no direct evidence, that letter writers are better informed on the issues on which they write than non-writers. The suspicion is based in part on the probability that letter writers are better educated, and on the fact that in order to write a letter it is necessary to have at least some information concerning the topic about which you are writing. 38 m_mxpm:< m>wwm>cmmcoo now: cmsmw: LmuFO mm? gamucoo cancob mwmxpmc< m>wum>cmmeou ;m_: gmcmwz cmupo Pmm ucmucou zmco mpmcmuoz mmm 3mw>cmu=H mncm> .mc» «F .m>< cash m>wum>cmmcou saw: emgmw: cmupo m_ez MNF mc_accowumm=o cwum> mwmxpmc< m>wpm>cmmcou amp ucmucoo mw>mo .m>< cusp m>wum>cmmcoo saw: emcmw: emupo Ne zmw>cmucH mmcm>cou .m>< cash m>_am>emm:ou cow: cmnmw: LmUFO ow 3mw>cmpca acmecmh .mg» mp .m>< cash w—m: m>wum>gwmcoo cam: cwsmwz cmufio apumoz we 3mw>cmch msuamcom mzmw> comp meoucH mm< xmm mNVm vogue: xvapm 85:8 -833 £958 .mmwuapm 3m_>cmuca ucm :ocmmmmm op x3 emcwscmpwo mm .cowpmpagom pmemcmw mca on cmcmaeou mcmpwcz gouge; we mu_pmwcmpomcmsuu-.a m4m ewe: cue: emcee em, zmw>emeefi emceee_¥ mwmxpmc< ;m_= new: cos beeeeou xem_o mmmzpmc< ;m_: saw: was beeeeou peamom mwmapmc< em_: gap: eee_o ooo.o~ peepeou eezem mucmcmwe_o mwm»_m:< em_z eee_o oz cop peepeou Neeweeez ewe: ewe: zew>emeeH umoz saw: zmw>cmch a:p_mu saw: cue: >gm> >gm> 3ww>gmch Lmaom mzmw> cow» meoocH mm< xmm mem noggmz xuspm _eewprpoa -mezeu eFQEam .umzcwpcouuu.a u4moeec_< .z .> ”uumaom Rpm m m e_e e a see m w Aeoaoe>meemv um_e_ees mc3o> gem m m_ sew e a, son e mp ee>mea Foaoc>mcgm ePM m m_ emm e “F sow e e_ ee>mea eeeeewpex see a me ewe m e_ see 0 m. eec>om emem_xee~= emm m m. emm a mu eem m m. A>e_¥v Leena m.cmxcoz gem N_ om eme o_ mm sow m m_ e_mm=eopmm umw>om Rep mwmmzm ee_>om .nam um>wmuwm .nsm um>wmumm .nam uw>wwumm comma consaz conga: consaz cmaazz cmnszz consaz me-mem_ oe-mmm_ em-emm~ .Amucmmaonp :Hv cmnEzz mmmcm>< ”cm>wmumm mgmppmg mo Lmafiazuu.>H quqh .mmc:m_w szpum pumpwwc mommpcmucme .umvcaoc mew mcmnsaz .mmw .emm .aa .onmp .>ogmwp< .z .> "mumnom 55 m~+ om mp+ mp ep mu>oca xmcsx o Np ~o_+ up w mu>mca >mw¥ mmN+ mm m mu>mca\nocomom~o> mm+ we . om mu>mca zoomoz -+ o_ «F ummm we mu>mca m+ 8 2. mm mm 2:55 3:8 P~+ om w+ mm mm xcwmcx:\mc>mca e- 2: 8: 8m . 8 Beefizeemes. NmF+ mpm o¢+ 05 mm ovumm>~H 2- SN , 8+ 2a SN . 82: mmcmcu um>wmumm mmcmcu um>wmumm uw>wmumm Loam; x conga: a consaz cmnEzz compuoomp mmmpummmp “mmpimmm— .Amucmmaozh :HV consaz mmucm>< unm>mmumm mcmpumA we cmasazua.> m4m~g mmom ng o go Now goo pmm gmm g gp ng gem Ngog moo o go com gpe oo— goo F go ggp goo ooop moo o go omm gmm oeg gmm o go mo gop coop New o go mpg goo mg gom o go No gmm ooog oom o go mop gmm om_ gvm N g_ NNF gFm omog mom o go o go cup goo o go mm gom moo, Pouch pmmomm ucmssoo cogpmwoozm cogpumFgwm gcgmpoeoo mu>mco .egpme>~o\ee>eea "waxy cepomo--.e>x momogo .geeoeem ggxmegxemggo_et¥= eo>eoa "waxy Legged--.n>x mono» 141 Ukrainy, the important factor relating to coding is the percentage of complaints versus suggestions and comments which are found in the letter sample. By definition, letters which are classified as complaints will be coded much lower than those which offer sug- gestions, and probably lower than those making comments. In fact, this is always the case as is illustrated in the following chart: Average Coded Values of Letter Types Letter is Complaint Reflection Suggestion Comment Pravda 1952 1.96 3.8 4.4 Pravda 1972 1.95 2.9 3.2 3.8 Pravda Ukrainy 1952 2.0 3.9 4.1 Pravda Ukrainy 1972 2.0 3.9 3.8 Although the suggestions and comments have decreased in coded value over the 20 year span, allowing some criticism and less platitudinous praise for poliey and leadership than under Stalin, complaints still have only about half the value of the other two frequently printed types of letters. As Table XV shows, the two republic level papers tend to print fewer complaints than the All- Union papers, and more comments which have the highest coded value. This accounts for the higher overall values found in these papers. The fact that the "probably spontaneous" group of letter authors has as high a rating in many cases as the non-spontaneous group, 142 and a much higher coded value than the spontaneous group, is related to the type of letter that tends to come from each group. Table XVI shows this relationship for the two selected papers for 1962 and 1972. The table shows that a high proportion of complaints, almost half, came from the “spontaneous" authors, while less than a quarter came from the "probably" group which tends to be clustered in the suggestion type letter. The reason that "spontaneous" authors differ from both the I'non" and "probably" authors is shown here. The "non-spontaneous" authors match the "probably" group in percent of complaints. The remaining letters written by the "non- spontaneous" group are mostly comment type letters which, especially in the republic papers, have nearly the same coded value as sug- gestions, which form the majority of letters written by the "probably" group. In the first part of this chapter a drop in the total number of letters which appeared in 1972 was noted, a fact counter to a trend of a continuously increasing number of letters printed each year. Looking at Table XV it can be seen that one partiEUlar type of letter accounts for this drop. In the three papers that experienced the decline in total letters printed, each has experi- enced a very significant decline in the number of comments printed concomitant with a slight increase in suggestions. The difference between the increase in suggestions and the decrease in comments accounts for the decline. One may only speculate about the reasons for this dramatic change in the types of letters printed. There are several possible 143 TABLE XVI.--Spontaneous Letter Writing and Letter Type. Letter Type Complaint Suggestion Comment Pravda 1952 35/15/51 8/52/40 0/33/67 Pravda 1972 53/22/26 21/41/28 22/18/60 Investia 1952 37/20/43 10/66/24 0/67/33 Investia 1972 40/24/36 17/46/37 12/13/74 Pravda Ukrainy 1952 42/29/29 13/73/15 8/48/45 Pravda Ukrainy 1972 44/22/35 15/63/22 0/20/80 type of letter. 1st percent given is percent of spontaneous letters in that 2nd percent is percent of probably spontaneous letters in that type of letter. 3rd percent is percent of professional/requested letters in that type of letter. 144 reasons for the change. Comments tend to be longer than most sug- gestions appearing in the papers, using ideological terms and examples more frequently to make a point. The drop in comments may have occurred in order to allow more space for other materials. A second possibility is that the drop in comments is the result of a shift in emphasis or subject. Table XVII examines the possibility of a shift in subject matter. The table indicates that over the 20 year span for the three papers which experienced a drop in the number of letters in 1972, there was a parallel drop in the comments dealing with both ideology and Party work. The drop is obviously significant and not accidental. There is also a decrease in ideology and Party work in suggestions for the three papers which had a letter decrease in 1972, while Pravda's suggestions and comments on these t0pics tend to be stable. This drop is the source of the decrease in Party/ideology letter percentages for the three papers. In absolute numbers, the increasing volume of letters on Party work in Eppppp_demonstrates its continued dominance over Izvestia on the subject. The Central Committee organ has also overcome the government paper's volume of ideological materials which in 1952, under Stalin, had been pronounced. Pppypp_excepted, the drop in the number of ideology and Party work letters, combined with a significant decrease in the more ideologically oriented comment letters, suggests that letters may have become more pragmatic in tone and content over time. Table XVIII shows the changing patterns in the use of ideology in letters. The table shows a general drop in the proportion of letters printed 145 TABLE XVII.--Subject of Suggestion and Comments--Partial List. Pravda Pravda Izvestia Izvestia 1952 1972 1952 1972 Subject Sug Com Sug Com Sug Com Sug Com Ideology 1% 1% 5% 14% 20% 1% 5% Party Work 21% 20% 2% 6% 13% 2% 1% Industry 27% 22% 13% 6% 8% 7% 15% 7% Agriculture 4% 22% 9% 10% 11% 7% 12% 3% Public Services 3% 4% 3% 8% 27% 6% 6% Education 2% 8% 3% 6% 11% 1% History 9% 22% 2% 11% 11% 1% 17% Labor Relations 13% 22% 10% 10% 13% 8% 2% Art 8% 4% ’12% 7% 7% 5% 16% Pravda Pravda Bakinskii Bakinskii Ukrainy Ukrainy Rabochi Rabochi 1952 1972 1952 1972 Sug Com Sug Com Sug Com Sug Com Ideology 7% 53% 1% 7% 24% 2% 10% Party Work 10% 6% l7%# ‘4% 13% Industry 11% 3% 16% 13% 4% 13% 20% Agriculture 21% 5% 15% 27% 16% 14% Public Services 14% 3% 1% 20% 3% 6% Education 2% 6% 2% 4% 4% History 4% 18% 13% 40% 7% 24% 9% 30% Labor Relations 23% 8% 12% 15% 8% 11% Art 4% 3% 11% 2% 8% 15% 20% 146 goo goo ooo goo oo go oo goo oo go oooo goo goo ooo goo oo go oo go— oo goo oooo goo goo ooo goo op go oo go— go go oooo goo goo ooo goo oo go oo goo oo goo oooo goo goo ooo goo oo goo oo goo go goo oooo mogmm>~o oo goo ooo goo oo go ooo goo oo goo oooo goo goo ooo goo oo go oo go ooo goo oooo goo goo ooo goo oo goo oo goo oo goo oooo goo goo oop goo oo go oo goo op go oooo goo goo ooo goo oo go ooo goo oo goo oooo goo goo oo goo oo goo oo goo op go oooo vow: uoz com: mcoz ogoo ogogoosmgcoo gougmmmoo Pooch mo>mgo .mgumm>~oooo>mgo “ooooomoo we moo m.go;u:<--.moog>x ooooo 147 goo goo oo goo po goo oo goo oo goo ooop goo goo oop goo oo goo oo goo or go ooop goo goo oo goo oo goo oo goo o go ooop gooeamm ngmegxmm goo goo opp goo op go oo goo oo goo ooop goo goo org goo oo goo oo goo op go ooop goo goo ooo goo oo goo oo goo o— go ooo— owmo uoz now: «:02 - :goo ogmgooEmucoo omogmmmoo Peach ocgmgxo mo>mgo .wgeeamm ggxme_xmm\oe_mox= mo>moa "ooooomoo mo mm: m.go;g:<--.oHHH>x ooooo .>oo ougoo ougmo .mo>mgo ”mooo x cogumoouuoul.mggxx o4ooo .>oo ougmo zoom; .mgpmm>NH ”mooo x eegomaseeo--.nooxx oomoo 158 o o.o o o o oo o.o o o.o o o.o op o.o oooo Po o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o go o.o ooo_ o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o. o.o op o.o oooo :wELgmoo .oo mumggg< ogopgog: mung mugEmoou< xoox Logo; tomcgzoo op o.o o o.o oo o.o o o.o op o.o oo o.o o o.o oooo op o.o oo o.o op o.o o o.o o o.o oo o.o o o.o ooop o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o Po o.o o o.o oooo mgmxgoz mgmxgoz mgmxgoz -oogoo +oo -vosoo +oo .omo o< .>oo .>oo ougmo ougmo gooooom goxmchmo o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o oo o.o oooo oo o.o o o.o oo o.o o o.o o o.o op o.o oooo oo o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o op o.o oooo .owsggmoo .oo mumgug< ogmggogz mum? mo_Emomu< xoox gmzoo tomcgaoo oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o o o.o o o.o op o.o o o.o oooo oo o.o o o.o oo o.o o o.o o o.o op o.o op o.o oooo op o.o op o.o oo o.o o o.o o o.o oo o.o o o.o oooo mgmxgoz mgmxgoz mgmxgoz -oogoo +oo -oogoo +oo .umo o< .>oo .>oo ougmo ougmo ocgmgxo wo>ogo .ogueaem ggxmewxemooeomexo mo>mga "moeo x eegpmazuoo--.uHHxx oomoo 159 TABLE XXIIIa.--Sex: Pravda/Izvestia. Pravda Male Female Unknown Both 1952 84% 174 7% 15 6% l3 3% 6 1956 91% 363 7% 26 2% 9 1960 90% 221 9% 22 1% 2 1% 2 1964 92% 409 7% 29 1% 4 1% 3 1968 92% 553 7% 42 0% l 1% 7 1972 90% 649 8% 58 2% ll 0% 3 Izvestia 1952 94% 277 4% l3 2% 5 1956 94% 276 4% 13 2% 6 1960 89% 427 11% 51 0% 2 1964 90% 570 10% 61 0% 2 1968 1972 87% 356 12% 47 0% l TABLE XXIIIb.--Sex: 160 Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi. Pravda Ukrainy Male Female Unknown Both 1952 95% 194 5% 10 1960 97% 241 3% 8 1972 93% 209 5% 12 1% 2 0% l Bakinskii Rabochi 1952 90% 96 8% 8 3% 3 1960 87% 249 12% 35 1% 2 1972 90% 194 10% 22 161 of female letter authors had increased to 12% with a proportional drop in male letter writers to 87%. While this is triple the representation presented in 1952, the sample is still obviously overwhelmingly unrepresentative in terms of sex. Shlyapentokh's research indicated that there is probably a difference in author's sex based on subject matter. The data do indicate that in general, women 1etter writers do tend to write proportionately more letters on subjects concerning consumer goods and services, and education, at least to the national level papers. Over the entire 20 year time span of this study, Izvestia printed more letters dealing with these subjects (22% of all letters) than any other paper. By contrast, in Pppypp_15% of the letters dealt with these subjects. This difference probably explains much of the variance between the two All-Union papers in terms of repre- sentation by sex, though a full cross tabulation of subject by sex is not really reliable due to the small number of women in the sample. Because of the sample size, the subjects often fluctuate in an irregular manner, however, in Izvestia consumer goods and services and morals/mores topics account for a good proportion (approximately 20%) of letters written by women. In the other three papers, Party work usually accounts for about the same per- centage of letters by female writers. In all four papers, however, women usually account for between a quarter and a third of the letters written on art and education, reflecting their importance in the labor pool of these two occupations. Likewise, though, there is some fluctuation of letters on agricultural t0pics, 162 particularly those dealing with non-mechanical aspects, 50% are often authored by women. While this certainly reflects the male/ female division of the labor pool much better than the overall proportions, in other areas in which women form a large percentage of the work force, such as medicine, student activities, and scientific work, they are seldom the authors of letters on those subjects. Logically, there should be a high correlation between educational attainment, occupation, and the subject of the letter written. The correlation between occupation and subject has already been explained. Unfortunately, the limitations of the data on educational attainment and the number of women in the sample, make a cross tabulation of female letter authors and edu- cation of limited value. Fortunately, however, the letters yielded more information on occupation than education, and it is possible to gain a measure of the proportion of women in the various occu- pations of the letter authors. Table XXIV shows the percentage of women in the occupations represented among letter authors.* Below is a table of the occupations of women letter authors, only Eppypp_and Izvestia are listed because of the small N for the other two papers (Pravda Ukrainy had a total of only twelve women authors): *Full tables offered in Appendix A, consolidated version given in text. Pravda 1.9.52. 1.96_6 116.9 19.64. 1.96.41 1912. Party 33% 14% 7% 14% 22% 24% ‘ Government 8% 5% 11% 6% Worker 8% 21% 50% 14% 6% 15% Ag. worker 17% 7% 7% 5% 17% 9% Academia 8% 7% 7% 11% 6% Artist 17% 14% 14% 6% 3% Lower Ed. 8% 14% 7% 10% 6% 15% NUMBER 12 14 14 21 18 33 Izvestia 1.96_2 £9.62 196_0 19.69 1.9.2.2. Party 25% 5% 6% 4% Government 25% 10% 14% 17% Worker 25% 100% 25% 14% 17% Ag. Worker 6% 4% Academia 25% 25% 14% 22% Artist 3% 9% Lower Ed. 11% 26% 13% NUMBER 4 l 19 35 23 163 Occupption of Women Letter Writers With the expected fluctuations due to the small N, there are only three occupations in Tables XXIVa-XXIVc in which women con- sistently comprise more than 10% of the total population of letter writers; workers, agricultural workers, and non-university teachers. The table above, however, shows that these are not necessarily the dominant occupations of the women letter authors. This is especially In Eppypp, after a regressive true for the ag. worker category. period during the Khrushchev era, Party professional becomes the 164 most frequent profession for women authors, while in Izvestia there is a similar phenomenon among government professionals. Like the author population as a whole, the average female letter author tends to come from the higher occupational groups. They form a prominent (for their size in the sample) proportion of only a few occupational groups, and these, workers, ag. workers, and teachers, are not the more desirable professions among the Soviet citizenry.4 The supposition that women do not write often on subjects concerning medicine, science, and student activity since they do not form a large percentage of the author groups that logically write these letters, is borne out. The logical question which follows is why don't they write more letters? Certainly, to attempt to answer this question would require more information than is available from the coding of printed letters. Since not much detailed information on the role of women in the various levels of the professions is known, this might reflect a relegation to the middle or lower levels of these occupations as the more prominent individuals would be more likely to venture an opinion or comment or be solicited for it. The writing of a letter requires interest in the issues, the time to write the letter, the self confidence to state publicly one's views, and perceived ability to have an effect on events. A study on the question of women authors would have to deal with the physical and psychological pressures that expectations of the dual role of women in the USSR has on them. The answer may be as simple as not having the time to write letters, or time to deal with deeper questions of self perception. 165 Age and Education Table XXV gives the coded information obtained on author education, and Table XXVI gives the information on author age.* The two variables will be only briefly considered together because both have "unknowns" for two-thirds of the letters. The picture emerging from the Soviet studies is one of an older and highly educated population. In Davydchenkov's study of Izvestia, fully 90% of the authors were 40 or older, half were over 65, and only three percent were under 25. Even in Verkhovskaya's research of letter writers to the All-Union youth paper, 57% of the letters were written by those over 30. Unless the information was offered in the letter, a determination of age could only be made by inference of occupation, references to pensions or participating in past historical events, and Party membership. For more prominent individuals, a biography in a suitable reference work can be used. Even using the broad labels shown on the table, only the most sketchy pattern emerges. The data tends to illustrate a picture of at least an adult population of letter writers, but it seems that both the younger and elder authors are underestimated and little can be profited by the information. Like age, the data on education is both inferred and scanty. Davydchenkov's work suggests a well educated population (60% specialized or some higher). The information that has been attained, and is therefore the information reflected by the authors of *Full tables offered in Appendix A, discussion offered in text. 166 themselves, indicates that letter writers are probably well educated. Over 90% of those with information available had a higher education, obviously an overestimation. Even those in the incomplete higher category were students working toward the completion of a degree. Urban-Rural/Geographic Residence The information on place of residence was much more complete than that of education and age, as most authors (about 60%) referred to their home town either in the body of the letter or at the end with their signature. The existance of urban/rural cleavage based on the advantages which urban living has over rural in material, cultural, and educational terms in the USSR is well known, especially by the young Soviet citizen who uses higher education and the military to escape the life of a collective farmer. As might be expected from a section of the population which is less informed, less well educated, and with less access to the media, they send fewer letters to the national papers than urban citizens, only one-third as many. Other studies have shown that the rural popu- lation participates in other activities, such as Komsomol or Trade Union activities, to a lesser extent than their urban counterparts. Since rural inhabitants also have a lower readership of All-Union papers, the lower proportion of rural authors is not surprising. In the two republic level papers, the rural population actually has a larger percentage of letters than the urban inhabit- ants. Since both of these republics have extensive agricultural regions, it is tempting to assume that the rural population has 167 more inclination to write in to the local paper with their problems for solutions. The problem with this is that the proportion of unknowns is high and actually increases over the time period for both papers. In Pravda Ukrainy the percentage of both identified urban and rural letters decreases over time, though urban letters decrease at a faster rate. In comparing content of the letters for the two groups of authors, the major difference in subject matter is that rural dwellers write extensively about agriculture (about 40%+), with labor relations, consumer problems, and Party work (15% each) making up the rest. The two groups are almost identical in other factors such as the type of letter, code value, and use of ideology. With the major preoccupation of rural authors on agriculture (the percentage by urban authors on agriculture is constant), if the proportion of rural letters actually increased over time, so would the percent of agricultural related letters printed. As earlier analysis of subjects showed (Table XIII) this was not the case, as they vary only from 13-18% with the lowest figure occurring in 1972. For Bakinskii Rabochi, the characteristics are essentially the same with the exception that rural dwellers have an even higher percentage of agricultural subjects for 1952 and 1960 (over 50%) which then drops to less than 40 in 1972 when the percentage of agricultural letters for the paper as a whole, which had been steady at 20%, drops to 12%. These figures indicate that the percentage of rural letters while probably larger in the republic papers than 168 the national level papers, is not nearly as extensive as the per- centages first indicate. Table XXVII shows the distribution of letters by geographic area. The two republic papers obviously serve only their populations as shown by the figures. The national papers are overwhelmingly RSFSR oriented as shown, with the small percentages from other areas fairly constant. The only change in this occurs during the Khrushchev era when there is a slight shift to materials from the Ukraine and Central Asia, probably an expression of the Virgin Lands and agricultural methods. Eppypp_and Izvestia then serve the USSR but with a decidedly Great Russian tilt since even the Khrushchev variations are minor. These figures indicate that either there is a bias against non-Russian letters, that Great Russians are much more prolific letter writers, or more probably, the other groups tend to turn to the lower levels of the press to accomplish their goals. Partprembership In obtaining a measure of Party membership a format similar to that of spontaneous letters was used. The letter authors were coded as Party members if they were mentioned as such in the letter or if a biography indicated that they were members. Authors were coded as "probably Party" if their occupation or experiences indicated that they were probably members. For example, all army officers, members of the police and court systems, and members of the professional government apparatus were coded as "probably party" 169 if no specific information was available. Likewise, an author who describes experiences such as fighting with the Red Guards and storming the Winter Palace, or being a political commissar for 40 years, was coded as "probably" unless more specific information was available. The figures shown in Table XXIX, then, are a fairly conservative measure of Party membership among 1etter writers. These compare very well with the Party membership figures for Verkhovskaya's study. About 57% of the letter writers in this research were CPSU members. Two aspects of the CPSU membership figures stand out in the tables. One interesting point is the stability of the Eppppp Ukrainy figures for the 20 year span. The Ukrainian paper shows a continuity of non-Party/unknowns displayed by none of the other papers. There is an increase in confirmed Party members in 1960 which is in direct contrast to the other papers. The very low membership figures for Izvestia 1952—1960, are also unique in the data. In looking at the tables, it seems that only total figures for combined Party/probably and non-Party/unknown should be compared. The continuing fluctuations in confirmed and "probably" totals are one reason. The comparability of the non-Party/unknown figures for all papers, and their similarity to those found in Soviet studies, also suggests that really only these two figures should be seriously considered. When these figures are used, there are two patterns which emerge in Party membership: (1) Eppypp Ukrainy which is stable over the time period; (2) The All-Union 170 TABLE XXIXa.--Author Party Membership: Pravda/Izvestia. Pravda Probably No/ Party Party Komsomol Unknown 1952 31% 64 15% 32 0% O 53% 111 1956 27% 109 23% 90 0% 0 50% 198 1960 17% 41 26% 63 0% 0 58% 143 1964 32% 142 27% 118 0% 0 42% 185 1968 20% 123 36% 214 0% 0 44% 266 1972 22% 161 37% 268 0% 2 40% 287 Izvestia 1952 9% 25 31% 91 0% 0 60% 177 1956 9% 27 20% 58 0% 0 71% 210 1960 8% 37 25% 120 0% 0 67% 321 1964 20% 124 38% 242 0% 0 42% 267 1972 13% 53 44% 180 0% 0 43% 175 171 TABLE XXIXb.--Author Party Membership: Rabochi. Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Pravda Ukrainy Probably No/ Party Party Komsomol Unknown 1952 12% 24 27% 54 0% 0 61% 125 1960 20% 49 25% 62 0% 0 55% 138 1972 11% 24 35% 78 0% 0 55% 122 Bakinskii Rabochi 1952 22% 24 42% 45 0% 0 36% 38 1960 16% 45 30% 85 0% 0 54% 155 1972 19% 42 39% 85 0% 0 40% 86 172 papers and Bakinskii Rabochi which show an obvious and dramatic increase in Party activity in letter writing which dates from 1964 and the installation of the new Brezhnev regime. Within this second pattern there are variations in the pre-l964 years but very little after this year. Izvestia for example, shows a much higher percentage of non-party authors than either of the other two, though each shows a marked increase during the Khrushchev year of 1960. This is in keeping with Izvestia's relative lack of Party and ideological themes, and its generally lower ideology profile as was shown earlier. These same two indicators, themes and ideology, also forecast the rise in Party authorship after 1964--both increasing. When investigating the relationship between membership, subject, and use of ideology, the results are as expected, there is a direct relationship. The more likely the author is to be CPSU, the more likely he is to use ideological terms in his letter as shown in Table XXX. Here the increase after 1964 for the two Party categories is shown. For the two All-Union papers among the non-party group, there is a steady reduction in the use of ideological terms. A trend, however, not followed in the republic papers. In Bakinskii Rabochi the non- Party group reverts back to Stalinist levels, even though "ideological" subjects such as ideology, Party work, international relations, and history do not increase. The Ukrainian paper shows the highest levels of ideology for the non-Party/unknown group during the Khrushchev years. This is in direct contrast to the trend shown in the other papers. The Ukrainian figures are explained by the 173 TABLE XXXa.--Ideology Used X Party Membership: Pravda/Izvestia. Pravda Probably No/ Party Party Unknown 1952 73% 64 66% 32 48% 111 1956 62% 109 39% 90 39% 198 1960 56% 41 33% 63 32% 143 1964 64% 142 50% 118 32% 183 1968 53% 123 24% 214 33% 266 1972 50% 80 37% 121 27% 454 Izvestia 1952 80% 25 46% 91 37% 176 1956 70% 27 45% 58 38% 209 1960 62% 37 23% 120 17% 321 1964 58% 124 30% 240 20% 267 1968 1972 68% 53 46% 174 18% 174 174 TABLE XXXb.--Ideology Used X Party Membership: Pravda Ukrainy/ Bakinskii Rabochi. Pravda Ukrainy Probably No/ Party Party Unknown 1952 79% 24 61% 54 39% 124 1960 67% 48 53% 62 47% 138 1972 95% 24 53% 78 39% 122 Bakinskii Rabochi 1952 67% 24 42% 45 39% 38 1960 73% 45 54% 85 37% 155 1972 79% 42 61% 85 42% 86 175 increased volume of letters on international relations and agri- culture, both themes among the subjects most highly loaded with ideological terms. The new enthusiasm for chemical fertilizers and corn in agriculture, and the U-2 incident produced letters from non-Party authors, the first filled with contemporary ideological references, the second filled with more traditional ideological catch phrases considered suitable for the occasion. When these two topics are taken out, the level of ideology used by non-Party would be close to the levels of the other two years--stable just like the proportions of Party to non-Party authors. In both republic papers the use of ideology hits new high levels in 1972 for CPSU members, again in contrast to the pattern of the two A11- Union papers. We have already seen (Table XVIII) that these increases are due to increases in the use of contemporary terms. The conclusion must be that either the local populations, which are served by the two republic papers, are more ideologically oriented than the Great Russians, or that there are more selective editors at work at local levels, a more likely explanation. As is to be expected, there is also a positive relationship between CPSU membership and both the writing of complaints and the general tone of letters.* The more likely the author is to be a member of the CPSU, the higher the positive coded values for his letter, and the lower the percentage of complaints in his letter. *Full tables included in Appendix A. 176 Measures of the Possible Use of Letters Letters as a Public Forum In attempting to compare the systems of letters to the editor in the Soviet Union with U.S. letters, the factor which most observers consider of greatest importance in differentiating between the two, is the lack of real discussion and debate on issues allowed in the Soviet press. For the letters to fit the description of a forum for debate there must be more than a presentation of the issues, there must be a presentation of a variety of opinions on the subject. The measures of the usefulness of letters to the editor as a public forum is the extent to which there is variance in the expressed opinions on a given topic. A first prerequisite, the presentation of a variety of topics in the letters, is available as shown earlier with 25 different themes coded. To get an idea of how varied the opinions on the topics are, the authors opinions on the theme as measured on the five point scale (1 = undesirable, 5 = desirable) is used. Thus, if the author feels that the present situation or policy concerning the theme is the best possible state of affairs it would be coded as a five. If an immediate overhaul is felt to be needed because the present situation is intolerable, the theme would be coded as a one. Tables XXXIIIa through XXXIIIc give the yearly average coded opinions for the themes most often used. Tables XXXIVa and XXXIVb display the range of expressed opinions for 1952, 1960, and * 1972 for six selected topics on which some variance might be expected. * Full tables included in Appendix A. 177 Looking at the tables for the three selected years, it seems apparent that there is much more variety of opinion expressed at the All-Union level than for the two republic papers. This confirms an earlier conclusion that the "Gate-Keepers" are particularly contentious at the republic level. Bakinskii Rabochi has only one subject on which there appears to be any variety and that is consumer related topics. Pravda Ukrainy seems to be almost devoid of varience among 1etter authors on any topic. The theme of con- sumer goods and services is the closest to a public forum issue as both of the All-Union papers display some difference of opinion. As to be expected, people who write in are either for something, or against it, with few "3" scores indicating a neutral position. Likewise, there are few scores at the extreme ends of the scale, nothing is so bad that immediate, radical change is necessary, and nothing is so good that it can't be improved upon. In the Khrushchev years at Eppypp_and Izvestia this reaches a point where there are no "3" scores in Eppgpp_and only ten in Izvestia. During the Stalinist year of 1952 there is little variation in either paper, exceptions being consumer issues in Pppxpp, with fewer than ten letters for the entire period, and interestingly, Party work. In Izvestia for that year only the work of the Soviets shows any range in scores with an almost even balance between them. In 1960, Eppxpp_printed a varience in opinion on two issues, industry and consumer issues, both almost evenly balanced. Izvestia showed a variety of opinions on the work of the Soviets, consumer goods, agriculture, and to a somewhat lesser extent, industry. In 1972, 178 for Eppypp_there is some variation in each of the subjects except work of the Soviets, with the coding, although, still clustered at "2" and "4," there is a range over all five values. Izvestia does not show the same amount of variety in scores as the extremes are still not represented. The work of the Soviets, industry, and consumer goods are again represented and labor relations now shows some spread in scores. A simple rating of themes on the diversity of opinion expressed over time is given below. To score one "point," a theme must have at least half as many opinion scores on one side of the "3" mid-point as on the other, thus displaying some variation. There are four papers and three selected years, so the scores can range from zero to twelve for the issues, and zero to eighteen for the newspapers (3 years X 6 issues). Consumer Goods/Services 8 Izvestia . 8 Soviets . 4 Pravda . . 7 Industry 3 Bakinskii Rabochi . 3 Party Work . . . . . 3 Pravda Ukrainy . __31 Agriculture 2 2] Labor Relations __%_ Consumer goods emerge as the topic on which the range of discussion spans a variety of opinions most frequently, far out- distancing the others. The work of the Soviets is the issue ranking second. This is somewhat similar to consumer goods, as it often 179 involves criticisms or suggestions for the improvement of public service problems. The total for industry is low, only three times did papers offer a variety of opinions. However, of the three scored variences, two occurred in 1972, one each for Eppypp_and Izvestia, indicating that perhaps the situation with respect to this theme is changing. The data on consumer goods and services and other themes shows that over the years more letters have been printed on con- sumer topics which display a varied range of feelings than on any other topic, offering the closest thing to a public forum issue. Because of the non-specific character of the themes, which was necessary to insure continuity over the 20 year time span, and an adequate population for analysis, it is impossible to label the data as anything more than a general indicator. This indicator does show that over the time Span a variety of people write in about consumer goods and say both the quality/distribution/variety of consumer goods is bad, change it, and that the present system is good/getting better, keep up the good work. Because of the level of analysis, it can say nothing about the specifics of the discussion or about the quality of the discussion. We do know that a large percentage of Soviet letters deal with complaints, and that a majority of these deal with goods and services. A glance at Tables XXXIIIa through XXXIIIc,* which give the coded Opinions by theme, shows that consumer goods, services, Soviets, and crime, are consistently a full point below the coded values for other * Full tables included in Appendix A. 180 subjects, indicating that the discussion of these topics are not merely supportive of policy. We also know that unlike other subjects, both positive and negative comments in some sort of balance, are frequent. From this it does seem logical to conclude that the letters do offer a forum for at least a limited discussion of the merits and faults of the nation's system of consumer goods and services. Letters as a Safety Valve The conception of letters as a safety valve for letting off steam in both U.S. and Soviet studies has already been noted. Social scientists in both countries have considered letters to the editor as a major form of catharsis for the population by providing a channel for the expression of dissatisfaction with various aspects of their lives, thus venting their frustrations in a harmless and socially approved manner. Studies by Soviet social scientists, especially Davydchenkov, Ivanova, and Verkhovskaya, also indicate that the major reason people write in to newspapers is because they expect answers to their questions and help in the solution Of their problems.6 The question then becomes how effective are the papers in aiding Soviet citizens with their problems? Are the: large letter's departments, and elaborate attention given to letters, part of a system which provides solutions and answers, or does it provide its major service in letting the authors “get it off their chest" and to feel better afterwards? Studies indicate that while intentions are good, the performance leaves letter authors unhappy.7 181 In trying to construct measures of the value of letters as either a safety valve or an affective means for gaining action, it is expected that the larger the number of letters printed expressing discontent and frustration (percentage of letters), the more "steam" being harmlessly released. The paper's follow-ups are useful here. Literature on Soviet journalism indicates that a major measure of a newspaper is its ability to solve problems for its readers. To gain the notice of readers and Party officials, it publishes its problem solving successes as follow-ups. Utilizing follow-ups on the letters concerning: (1) if any action is taken; (2) the intensity of action taken, and; (3) the lag time between the original complaint and the action, an idea of safety valve versus effective results may be gained.8 The higher the percentage of critical letters to letters as a whole, the more potential as a safety valve the system has. The lower the percentage of complaints to effective follow-ups, the more the system functions as a safety valve as opposed to effective petitioning for action. Those categories of issues with the lowest percentage of effective follow-ups and with the longest lag time between complaint and action, may be considered as the lowest priority category for action. A combination of a high percentage of complaint and low priority would be considered an issue for which the letters are a safety valve for discontent. Tables XXXVa through XXXVc show the percentage of complaints * for various subjects for all four papers over the 20 year time span. *Full tables included in Appendix A. 182 Tables XXXVIa through XXXVIc display the subjects of follow-ups for each of the papers and their proportion of follow-ups as a whole for that paper and year.* Tables XXXVIIa through XXXVIIc compare the percentages of complaints and follow-ups for each subject. In attempting this comparison unfortunately, the small annual number of letter follow-ups printed by the republic level papers makes such an attempt unprofitable since the percentages generated by their small numbers would be expected to fluctuate wildly, and would make any conclusions rather tenuous at best. The lack of follow-ups indicates that: (1) The two papers do not consider the publication of successful results necessary for their continued credibility; (2) They have very few successful actions to report; (3) They do not actually consider it a part of their job to solve problems and therefore see no need to publish progress reports. There is some reason to suspect that the second possibility is a likely answer. Igoshin's studies, along with Davydchenkov, Ivanova, and Verkhovskaya suggest that Soviet papers are less successful in gaining results than they would like to be, and than their letter authors had hoped.9 As noted earlier, Igoshin's work suggests that the level of the paper is directly related to the attainment of results. An analysis of the follow- ups that are printed clearly shows that the success rate of the two republic papers, even in those printed reports, is very low (see following table on action taken), lower than that for the other two papers. The literature on Soviet journalism places so much *Full tables included in Appendix A. 183 emphasis on the paper as an activist in gaining results for its readers, with at least the implied idea that its ability to do so is a measure of the paper's success, that it seems unlikely that repeated success would not be reflected by the paper in these follow-ups. This is supported further by comparing the total number of follow-ups printed to the total number of complaints printed: Total # Total # Complaints Follow-Ups Ratio Pravda 654 391 .59 Izvestia 548 364 .66 Pravda Ukrainy, 76 41 .54 Bakinskii Rabochi 74 35 .47 These figures also tend to support the third possibility that the editors do not consider it necessary to go beyond the printing of the letters. This means of course, that the editors would see their paper's function as something other than problem solving. This is suggested by the lower percent of complaints printed among total letters for the republic papers when compared 10 The combination of low ratio of to the All-Union papers. complaints to total letters, low ratio of all follow-ups, and poor success rate indicate that whatever their professed self-image, the two republic papers are neither successful problem solvers, nor channels for catharsis. Combined with the previously noted selection biases which limit the subject, type, opinion, and ideological 184 content of the letters in Pravda Ukrainy and Bakinskii Rabochi, letters in these papers seem to be considered as useful adjuncts to other news stories. In considering the two All-Union papers, it is obvious that there is a great deal of potential for both as a safety valve and a problem solver. Several themes which are the most frequent subjects for letters also have among the highest ratios of complaints. In Eppypp, Party work, industry, agriculture, and consumer goods/ services have such potential in varied years, and Izvestia combines frequency of occurrence with a high percent of complaints for work of the Soviets, industry, crime, education, and consumer goods/ services. Tables XXXVIIa and XXXVIIb compare the percentage of total new complaints that each subject contributes with the percentage of total follow-ups to previous complaints that each subject contributes. Along with the measures of specific action taken and lag time of action, this comparison provides an indication of the relative importance placed on action concerning the various subjects. For Eppgpp_it is obvious that Party work gains the most relative attention, with the percent of follow-ups always being higher than that of complaints. Agriculture and consumer goods also received a high degree of attention, with industry varying from year to year. The action on industry is low in 1952, 1956, 1960, and 1972, and higher in 1964 and 1968. Public services, likewise, shows a varying amount of attention with emphasis in 1952, 1964, and 1968, and de-emphasis in the other years. A com- parison of percentages for the six themes with the most potential 185 as safety valves is given below. The figures show the difference in complaint and follow-up percentages. Negative scores indicate that the subject constitutes a higher percentage of complaints than it does follow-ups. flwmwflm. Party Work 19 ll 7 6 3 International Relations ~15 ~15 ~19 ~36 ~22 - Industry ~ 6 - 1 ~13 5 3 Agriculture - 3 l3 3 15 8 Consumer Goods l3 3 13 8 - 2 Public Services 2 ~ 6 ~ 1 15 17 - As can be seen, action is always reported on Party work, seldom on international relations which contributes the major source of difference between the two figures. Since 1952, consumer goods and agricultural complaints have always received attention. Industry is usually fairly low though in 1964-1968 it is always a positive value. Public services, while generally low, show a big positive spurt in 1964 and 1968 which were the two best years for the paper in terms of follow-ups. In 1972 the only negative figure (aside from international relations) is the public service figure which had the highest number of complaints of any paper for any year and may have provided just too many cases to follow-up effectively. It appears then, that there is an improvement in attempts to report on complaints after 1960. Although in terms 186 of comparison of whole numbers, between 50% and 60% of printed complaints are the subject of printed follow-ups. For Izvestia, the following table gives the difference in percentages for several themes: 1952 1956 19p0_ 12p4_ 1972 International Relations - 7 ~32 ~10 ~21 - 5 Soviets 12 4 7 2 0 Industry ~12 ~19 10 8 ~11 Consumer Goods 9 9 ~ 4 2 7 Public Services ll 16 6 8 2 Crime - 9 4 ~ 3 1 7 Education ~ 4 - 2 ~ 3 - 4 ~ 1 As in Eppgpp, international relations is always negative, as is education. Likewise, industry moves to positive figures over the time span except for 1972. As was the case with Pravda's 1968 consumer goods score, this may have been a case of too many complaints to watch, and too many other authorities to depend on, as this is the largest single total of complaints for the span. While Pravda's major concern was Party work, agriculture, and consumer goods, Izvestia's seems to be the work of the local governmental units, and consumer goods and services, which of course, are highly interrelated. Except for the anomalous figure for industry in 1972, it appears that there is an attempt for more attention to progress reports. A better idea of the actual 187 effectiveness of action can be gained by looking at the action taken, and the lag time of action. Table XXXVII gives a total breakdown of the action reported in all follow-ups.* Table XXXVIII shows the action taken for each subject.* The table displaying the totals for action taken demonstrates that the majority of follow-ups are a promise of action rather than the report of an actual solution. In recent years, Izvestia in particular has also tended to use explanations of why things are, rather than reports on solutions or promises, although promises are still extensively used. A comparison of reported solutions indicates that the national papers wield more influence than the republic papers, and that Pprpp_tends to accomplish more than Izvestia. The exception is the period 1960-1964 when the editor of Izvestia was the First Secretary's son-in-law. Below is a consolidation of these two tables using only the high potential subjects minus international relations. Totals are given for comparison (first number is percent solved, second is percent promised). Taking into consideration anomalies due to the small N for each cell, it seems apparent that the impression given by previous tables that the papers' performance as a problem solver is increasing, is reinforced. Pravda's record in 1968-1972 is particularly impressive with high "solved" percents for all subjects. When * Full table given in Appendix A, consolidation given in text. Pravda Party Work Industry Agriculture Consumer Goods Public Services Total for Year Investia Soviets Industry Consumer Goods Public Services Crime Education Total for Year Reported Action Taken in 188 1952 0/100 50/ 50 0/100 60/ 4O 25/ 75 29/ 68 0/100 100/ 0 0/100 13/ 84 1956 60/ 40 0/100 0/100 33/ 67 0/100 29/ 71 O/ 86 50/ 50 8/ 79 Follow-Up§_ 1960 1964 1968 1972 0/ 75 0/100 60/ 20 33/ 20 0/100 0/ 75 91/ 0 17/ 67 0/100 40/ 4O 89/ 0 25/ 56 13/ 63 0/100 71/ 14 27/ 50 0/100 14/ 14 89/ 8 23/ 50 21/ 59 15/ 49 14/ 60 29/ 38 1960 1964 1972 15/ 69 10/ 60 25/ 50 25/ 69 13/ 56 ll/ 44 8/ 69 0/ 75 16/ 37 31/ 46 10/ 60 11/ 44 86/ 14 57/ 29 21/ 0 50/ 50 40/ 20 0/ 50 30/ 52 21/ 49 12/ 25 similar subjects are compared, Pravda's relative effectiveness is apparent. It seems that during the Khrushchev era, Izvestia was the place to write to if you wanted action, any other time Pravda was the best choice. Obviously, Adzhubei's ties with Khrushchev caused the relevant authorities to treat the paper's inquiries with more respect during those years. Within its own sphere of influence, each paper has success, Pravda with Party matters, Izvestia with soviet and crime themes. With these major themes, both are fairly successful in extracting at least promises for action. 189 The amount of time between the printing of a complaint and the follow-up is another indicator of relative effectiveness. Table XXXIX shows the lag time for the entire period.* Table XXXXa and XXXXb show the lag time for each subject.* As with the action taken tables, Eppypp_generally gets faster action except for the period 1960-1964. Along with Pravda's increasingly successful results, increasing speed of results is shown. It seems that the papers that get results also get fast reactions from the responsible authorities. One interesting point is that in 1952, during the Stalinist period, relatively few successful solutions were obtained, but many promises, and they came very quickly as can be seen. While it seems that a quick response would lead to promises, and that solutions would take longer, except for the Stalin year, this does not seem to be the case. If you have the influence to get quick action, you also get positive results. This combination indicates that at the All-Union level, the papers attempt to be problem solvers and their letter system's usefulness as an instru- ment for catharsis is of secondary importance. When writing for assistance, Eppypp_is the best choice for CPSU matters and Izvestia for problems pertaining to the Soviets. For other subjects, the choice is best made depending upon the political influence that each wields, with Pravda usually superior. *Full tables included in Appendix A. 190 Letters as a Source of Agitation-Propaganda The measure of the extent to which letters serve as a useful source Of agitation-propaganda, is the extent to which ideological references are used in the letters. As explained earlier, for purposes of this study ideology is considered as a particular cluster of specific doctrinal propositions about values, or about the relationships of phenomena. The major concern is to view ideology as it constitutes a set of relative value preferences which are set forth in letters as reinforcement to those presented by the CPSU. This broad view of ideology enables a differentiation between "classical" and "contemporary" references. This is a qualitative difference in the depth of understanding and use of Marxist-Leninist thought. The more the ideological terms cluster in frequently used themes, the more useful they are as an instrument of agitation-propaganda. As shown in Table XVIII and discussed earlier, there is a general decline in the proportion of letters printed which use ideological references at the All-Union level. The significant drop in the percentage of letters which use both classical and contemporary references, combined with a parallel decrease in the coded opinion values of letters over time, suggests that the concentration of ideological materials in letters which still use such terminology may also have declined. Letters at the All-Union level, therefore, would tend to use both fewer ideological references as we move through the time period. Also, those that still use such references would tend to be less dogmatic. This reflects a tendency 191 to discuss some subjects such as industry, agriculture, and inter- national relations by using contemporary ideological terms, while concentrating on classical references when dealing with art, education, and history. As shown earlier in this chapter, the two republic papers maintain a high level of ideology in their printed letters for all subjects. Their editorial selection biases are such as to consider propaganda-agitation as a major role of letters. Tables XXXXIa through XXXXIc display the percentage of letters which include ideological references in them. While many themes show a drop in ideology over the time span, many still contain references in a third or more letters, and several show increases in 1972, reverting to older patterns. Subjects such as Party work, international relations, agriculture, and history have such references in at least half of the letters. Three subjects stand out for their relatively low proportion of letters containing ideological themes: consumer goods, public services, and industry. Although the last topic, industry, shows a substantial increase in 1972, indicating that this proportion is subject to change as it has in the past, especially in EEQpr, The only subjects not really useful as agitation propaganda agents, then, are the consumer related topics. Although, each of these themes also tends to use contemporary slogan type ideological references in a quarter of the letters. Until 1972 all subjects were moving toward the instrumental range on the ideological continuum. This was due primarily to a 192 o. goo oo goo .. go. o go o go. o goo omoo e. oo.o o. go. o. go o goo . go o go o go o.oooo o. goo o. goo o goo o goo o go o go oooo...z oo goo oo go. o. goo oo goo .o goo o. goo meogoo.oo eoooo go goo oo goo oo goo m. goo o. goo o. goo oooom.: mo goo oo goo o. go. o g.. .. go. o goo eo.oooooo go goo om goo om goo o. go oo go. o. goo poo o. goo .. go. o goo o go o. go o go oe.oo om go. oo go o. go. o. go .o go o g.. moo.>oom o..ooo mo go. om go. o. goo o goo o. go. o go moooo ooEomooo oo g.o mo goo oo goo o goo oo goo .. goo oooo.oo.oo< oo goo oo g.. mo goo oo goo oo go. oo goo ooomooe. oo goo om go. mo goo o goo o. goo o goo oooogom .. go. o. go .. go. o. goo o go. o goo moo.>om mo g.o oo goo om goo om goo mo goo o. goo meo.oo.oo .ocogpmcompco mo goo oo goo oo goo o. goo om goo om g.o goo: ooooo o. goo oo goo oo goo o goo .o goo o goo. ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. oooooom “moomuo "oomo ooo.ooo. g g ooooooo--.oogxxg o.oo. 193 o. goo o. go. o g.. . goo. o goo oooz o. oo.o oo go. oo go oo go o go . go o.oooz o goo o goo. o goo . goo. o oo ooooo..z o. goo o goo o. goo o go. oo goo ooo.oo.oo ooooo oo goo .o g.o oo goo o goo oo goo ooooo.o oo goo oo go. oo goo o go. o. goo oo.oouooo oo goo oo go. oo goo oo goo o. goo ooo o. g.o oo goo oo go. o go o go. os.oo oo go. oo go. oo go oo go. oo goo oou.>ooo o..ooo oo goo oo goo .o go o. go o go ooooo oosooooo oo goo oo goo oo goo oo goo .o goo oooo.oo.ooo oo goo oo goo oo goo oo go oo goo ooooooo. .o go. oo go. oo go. o g.. o. goo oooo.oo o. goo oo goo oo go. oo goo oo goo ooo.>oo oo goo oo ooo oo goo oo g.o o goo. oooooo.oo Focowpocomch o goo. o goo o go . go o. goo oooz ooooo o. goo oo goo o goo o goo. oo goo ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooooooo ooommmomw "oooo ooo.oooo o g ooooooo--.o.gxgx oooo. 194 o go o go o oo o goo . go . goo. oooz o. mo.o . goo. o go o go o goo o go o oo o.oooz o goo . go o oo o goo o goo o go oooo...z oo goo o goo o. go. oo goo o. goo oo goo ooo.oo.oo ooooo o. goo o goo o. goo oo goo o goo. o. goo ooooooo o go o. go o goo o. go o goo o goo ooooooooo oo ooo o o.. o goo .o go o. goo o goo ooo o ooo .. goo o go o goo o goo . go oe.oo o. goo oo go o go. o go oo goo oo go. oooo>ooo oo.ooo o ooo oo goo o go o goo o goo o goo ooooo ooeooooo oo goo oo goo .o ooo oo goo oo goo oo goo oooo.ooooo< oo goo oo goo o. go oo goo oo go. o. goo ooooooo. o goo o goo . goo. o goo o goo . go ooooooo o go . goo. . go o goo o go. o goo oooo>oo o goo oo goo o goo .. g.o .o goo o g.o oooooo.oo .ocoowocomucu oo goo oo goo o. goo o. goo o. goo o. goo oooz ooooo o goo. o. goo o. goo. . goo. o. goo oo goo ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooooooo oouoooo .oooo.ooo acooox: oc>ooo ..ouoooo ..ooo.ooo ooo oo.oooo oooooo "oooo ooo.ooo. g x ouooooo--.ooxxxx ooooo 195 decrease in the number of ideological references. Some subjects such as art, history, and education, however, still retained the predominate use of classical references, although the total numbers are decreased. The subjects are still discussed primarily in more professional Marxist-Leninist terms. In 1972, there was a reversal of the instrumental trend for several subjects such as science, industry, and international relations. For international relations the percentage of letters in Eravga, including some ideological references, rose to 91%. This is the highest level recorded for the period of this study. This may signal the end of the instrumental trend because of both the range of subjects included in the reversal, and the magnitude of the change. Letters As a Link With the Masses The concept of a citizen’s letter as a channel for spontaneous grass-roots criticism permeates the literature on this subject.11 The letter demonstrates narodnost, massovost, and kritika-samo-kritika in action. As noted in Chapter II, the editor and deputy editors of each newspaper are expected to keep a running tally on the content of letters which are received so as to have a continuous source of public opinion measurement. Large numbers of complaints centered in certain areas are reported 12 But do to the relevant Party-government authorities for action. the leaders use such data as a source of public opinion data on which to make decisions? Since the fall of Khrushchev, upper 196 levels of the regime have shown some interest in obtaining infor- mation on the attitudes of the citizenry. Several sociological studies dealing with survey data on public attitudes have been sponsored by Party officials since 1964 in an effort to assure more rational decision-making. This also implies that to receive funding and the use of other resources, Party approval is necessary.13 Some Soviet social scientists have recommended that local Party and Soviets base their decisions of resource allocation on citizen preferences as identified in surveys.14 In a nation where the work of the opinion sociologist is circumscribed by substantial limits on his ability to conduct polls, the newspaper letter must still be considered as an important source of information. Even with the more frequent use of radio and television as a source of news opinions, the newspaper is still the primary source for political information for a majority of the population. With this factor are the vast number of letters reviewed by the papers each year. The present newspaper system has potential for furnishing a steady stream of information which can be analyzed from a local perspective, or readily transformed into regional or national data sets. It seems logical that the leadership, which both emphasizes the importance of this system of information in its literature, and frequently issues directives with the announced intention of insuring its correct functioning, would make some use of its potential. That local Party organs and soviets make use of the letters, there is no question. The follow—ups printed in the papers contain 197 thousands of examples of Party and Soviet organs punishing and correcting on the basis of complaints, suggestions, and comments received and printed in newspapers. They run the gamut of seriousness from large scale black market profitering, to the drunken kolkhoz chairman who downed a crop dusting plane with an empty vodka bottle, or to the local officials who cut telephone poles in half to use for lumber. Each case, however, is an example of a letter to the editor serving as a source of information upon which action is based. Unfortunately, the use of letters by higher level decision makers is less readily available, although there is evidence that citizens' letters are used by higher bodies as a source of information. It seems that Erayga_regularly sends reports on the aggregate opinions to the Central Committee. More concrete examples were provided by the 24th Party Congress which reaffirmed the importance of letters as "an important . . . means of the expression of public opinion, kritika-samo-kritika, and a 15 source of information." Several examples of cases which occurred in l973 in which Party authorities had acted on complaints or 16 These cases dealt suggestions provided in letters, were given. with public services, consumer goods, and housing. In the Tula oblast, the receipt of citizen's letters lead to an investigation and correction of problems in public transportation, and in Novisibirsk similar action was taken regarding deficiencies in the water system and the quality of apartment construction. The report stressed that local Party units must improve upon the systematic analysis of letters to provide for maximum effectiveness 198 17 The work of the Kalinin obkom committee. in problem solving. which made 356 reports on citizen's letters in l973, was offered as a model for other committees to emulate. The report noted that letters directly to officials, to papers, and mass organi- zations can be a source of systematic information " . . . on actual political, economic, and cultural questions . . . ," and that this source of information should be utilized to avoid past problems with information scarcity.18 There seems to be little doubt that the information potential of letters from private citizens is taken very seriously by Party officials who often lack similar alternative sources of data on which to base decisions. The usefulness of the letters as a source of aggregate opinion data, of course, is dependent upon the future of Soviet opinion sociology. Because of the biases inherent in author self selection, the inferiority of letters data to a well constructed interview schedule and sample in opinion polling, is marked. In the absence of interview data, however, the letters provide a handy, quick reference to public attitudes, which is apparently one of their functions today. Even if supplanted in this role by survey methods in the future, the importance of letters as sources of information on limited, or local problems will remain, preserving their role as a "link with the masses." 199 Letters as a Guide to Public Opinion What do the people really think about? What are their major concerns? In an attempt to answer these broad, but basic questions, pollsters occasionally include a question in the form of: "What problems or issues concern you the most today?" The respondents react in terms of crime, economic prosperity and inflation, war and so on. The opinion survey, with its careful sampling techniques, can provide a very reliable estimate of trends in the public mood. Although the poll has great validity in analyzing direct answers to direct questions, it also has some potential difficulties. If an issue is vague and offers no crystallized attitude which suggests quick, ready answers, it may be ignored for more easily distinguished issues. If an issue is too controversial, and the respondent fears that an "incorrect" or unconventional response may provoke public disapproval or worse, the usual, popular response, or a non-answer may result. The problem of getting direct answers to direct questions is a problem in the USSR as Soviet social scientists have discovered. Soviet scholars working on a readership survey for a newspaper had a great deal of difficulty in obtaining a response to the question, "Can you remember cases in the past when you did not agree with the newspaper's evaluation of certain facts or events?"19 Even with these defects, which are inherent in survey data, there is probably no other method of opinion measurement which is superior. When such data are too expensive, disruptive to the 200 subjects, incomplete, or in the case of the USSR, largely non- existent, letters to the editor may provide a readily available alternative. While the mere volume of mail on a certain subject may be an indication of public concern, studies of U.S. congressional mail have shown that a great influx of mail on a single issue is often artificial, stimulated by a pressure group and often con- tradicts valid opinion poll findings.20 Leila Sussman noted a tendency for groups to write letters when they feel they are losing, and not to bother if they feel the outcome is secure.21 To gain more than a superficial insight into the value of letters, indications of concern within them may be more generalizable than aggregate data collected from the letters on theme or a tally of support and opposition. The major problems with the validity of any letter's data are editorial bias and author self-selection bias. As expected from the analysis presented earlier in this paper, demographic characteristics of letter writers differ significantly from those of the population as a whole: it is overwhelmingly male, the writers as a whole tend to be more professional and upper middle class, they are better educated, older, and more likely to be members of the CPSU. However, several of these characteristics are modified if only complaints are considered. That there is editorial bias in selecting the letters was never doubted, but the data showed that it had a particularly heavy hand in the republic level papers. In spite of these difficulties it is obvious that letters are taken seriously by authorities, and are used as 201 sources of information by these leaders. While the characteristics of the author population must be considered, the letters are valued as a "thermometer" measuring potential "heat," or as "hazy re— flections" of general public opinion. The letters are valuable since they are not merely responsive to a direct question but are a direct manifestation of concern which is likely to reflect a similar concern for a much larger number of citizens. Indications of the levels and direction of public concern among Soviet citizens as expressed in letters are tabulated and used by authorities as sources of information. In this paper the letters have been measured for theme, direction and intensity, probable spontaneity, letter type, and ideological references. These are all aggregate measures of author concern and intensity of concern. As mentioned, such measures may be, and certainly are in the USSR, subject to influence by artificial influxes of letters written by small groups. The idea of gaining a measure of the expressed concern within the letters at a more basic level is appealing. In l968 a study was conducted at the Stanford Department of Communications which attempted to measure expressed concern within letters by recreating from a mass of letters, typical letters reduced to their most 22 While not totally successful, the study presented basic form. an interesting and novel approach to the analysis of letters data which I have applied to the Soviet letters. The goal of the approach is to code each letter for certain key words chosen for their high frequency, political/social 202 relevance, and descriptive value. Each word (l00 were used for this study) is coded only for its appearance, not for its frequency within each letter, the idea is to reduce the expressed concerns within each letter to its most basic form. By using factor analysis on these words the resultant factors and their loadings would in effect recreate typical letters which would indicate both themes and patters of concern among letter writers. Some examples from the Stanford study will illustrate the method:23 America . . . . . .8l Power . . . . . . .27 Vietnam . . . . . .56 China . . . . . . .23 Military . . . . .54 Opposition . . . . .18 People . . . . . .42 Asia . . . . . . .16 War . . . . . . .40 Media . . . . . . .l6 Congress . . . . .3l America . . . . . .33 These two clusters represent key words from letters to Iimg_ from January to June of l966. The factor loadings represent the strength of association between key words in the cluster. The cluster on the left has a higher average association than the cluster on the right. Each cluster reflects a typical letter received by Ijmg_in its most basic form. Both letters are obviously concerned with the U.S. involvement in Vietnam and domestic opposition to it. Each cluster may be interpreted further by consulting references to the media reports and opinion polls of that period. The number of factors represent the number of substantively meaningful, independent patterns of relationships, i.e., the number 203 of basic letter types for each paper per year. Within each factor, the loadings measure which words belong with which particular factor (letter). By grouping these words with a sufficiently high loading to make inclusion plausable (.l5), a typical letter is formed. By using varimax rotation, the most distinct clusters of relationships would be delineated if they existed, thus ensuring the most clear and distinct "letters." Such letters were constructed for each paper from the total * number of letters for each year: MAJOR EVENTS 1952-1972 l952 lO/ l9th Congress Presidium enlarged to 25, Secretariat to lo l953 Stalin dies, Malenkov and Khrushchev appointed to positions l954 Virgin lands announced 1955 Malenkov replaced as President/Big 4 Conference at Geneva l956 2/l4- 20th Congress--secret report on "cult of personality" 25 l0/23- Hungarian rising ll/4 1957 Sovnarkhozes created/Anti-party group crisis/lst Sputnik l958 MTS dissolved/Khrushchev became Premier/Educational reforms/Ag. problems aired l959 2lst Congress/Khrushchev visits U.S. *A chart of "Major Events 1952-1972" is included to aid in interpretation of the clusters. 1969 1970 1971 1972 1/14 5/l 5/16 7/17 11/ 2/10- 7/15 10/14 11/16 1/23 2/18 8/3 8/20 10/ 4/16 5/22 8/17 9/22 12/18 204 l/3 armed forces demobilized U-2 incident Paris summit collapses Bucharest conference of Communist Parties Soviet experts recalled from China Moscow conference of chiefs of Bl Communist Parties Berlin crisis/Khrushchev-Kennedy meeting in Berlin/22nd Congress Cuban crisis/Division of Party and Soviet apparatuses/Drive against modernist art Start of public fued with Peking/Test ban treaty/CC plenary on chemicals and fertilizers Plenary session on ag. Brezhnev replaced Mikoyan as President Khrushchev's fall CC plenary reunites branches of Party and Soviet apparatuses Industrial reform/Liquidation of many of Khruschev's reforms 23rd Congress — Brezhnev named Secretary General/ Sinyavski-Daniel trial/France withdraws from NATO Semichastny replaced by Andropov/Mid East War/Red Guards attack Soviet embassy in Peking Pueblo seized TET offensive Bratislava talks Czech. invaded Brezhnev notes ag. difficulties Soviet PRC boarder clashes/Solzhenitsyn expelled from writers union/SALT begins Econ. difficulties acknowledged/Ideological laxity dennounced/NKVD restored 24th Congress/loo Jews occupy SS building in Moscow 4 Soviet ships damaged in Haiphong Nixon visits Moscow Central Statistics Office reports wheat harvest down l5% from l97l Prep. talks for Helsinki SS economic plan calls for consumer goods cuts. 205 Stalin .73 Lenin .64 USSR .44 CPSU .28 US .21 Science .16 CC .15 Government .15 4 * Stalin .88 CPSU .56 Congress .50 Communist Construction .26 MTS .16 l Congress .81 CPSU .66 5 Year plan .60 Industry .28 Specialization .28 Success .28 Oil .23 4 US .69 West .58 USSR .37 Oil .19 7 Art .52 USSR .33 Cluster Letters: Pravda 1952 2 MTS .68 Agriculture .64 5 Communist Constitution .46 Science .43 Government .30* Stalin .23 USSR .15 1956 2 Agriculture .79, Ag. produce .75* Ag. machinery .72 CPSU .15 5 Ministry .56 Industry .38 Building .27 Transport .23 Oil .15 5 Year plan .15 *Ideological item. 3 CC .65 Culture/Art .36 CPSU .30 6 Building .49 Industry .43 3 Science .70 Education .68 Specialization .23 Success .19 6 CC .58 CPSU .46 Government .28* Ag. Machinery .21 Success .20 Congress .16 206 1 CC .81 CPSU .79, Khrushchev .25 4 Consumer Goods .51 1 CC .79 CPSU .77, Khrushchev .57 Communist , Construction .38 Agriculture .35, Lenin .35 Science .15 4 USSR .55 Citizen .37 Communist , Construction .28, Lenin .24 Military .24 1 CC .76 CPSU .73 Congress .62, Lenin .43 Agriculture .29 Government .24 4 US .30 Agriculture .23, Lenin .20 Congress .20 15.2641 2 * Khrushchev .59 USSR .49 US .43 1964 2 US .69 West .66 Third World .48 Military .32 USSR .19 5 Culture .57 Consumer Goods .52 1968 2 US .65 Military .55 NATO .49 USSR .38, Lenin .20 5 Culture .33 Agriculture .27 Education .66 Science .57 USSR .15 Science .69 Education .64 Science .62 Education .54 US .26 * Lenin .20 CPSU .81 Congress .68 CC .47, 5 Year plan .26 Science .20 Agriculture .18 4 Education .58 Science .55 Specialization .17 7 Congress .28 Science .28, 5 Year plan .24 1 * Stalin .78, Lenin .61 USSR .42 Communist , Construction .35 CPSU .34 Electrification .15 4 CPSU .68 Congress .65 Communist , Construction .41, Stalin .21 USSR .18 Government .16 1972 2 3 Ag. Produce .72* USSR .57 Agriculture .64 Government .43 Specialization .27 CC .26 Military .18 Citizen .l6 5 6 Agriculture .54 Industry 55 Ministry .53 Quality 32, Building .34 5 Year plan 21 Government 34 Ministry 16 Congress .18 CC .15 Cluster Letters: Izvestia 1952 2 3 MTS .66 Education .58 Agriculture .62 Science .58 Soviets .39 Government .22 Government .32 CPSU .27 Ministry .19 5 6 Specialization .41 Building .45 Science Soviets .40 Electrification .29 Government .30 Communist , Electrification .23 Construction .22 Communist , MTS .20 Construction 20 Ministry .20 208 7 Communist , Construction .48 Ministry .30 Government .23 MTS .22 1 US .76 West .66 Military .59 USSR .43 Third World .40 Government .20 4 Science .74 Education .69 CPSU .20 7 Industry .55 Science .21 Building .18 Ministry .17 Success .15 1 Education .74 Science .66 Ministry .16 4 Culture .39 Consumer Goods .30 1956 2 * Ag. Produce 75 Agriculture 63, Ag. Machinery 48 Ministry 18 Government 17 Success .15 5 Building .49 Culture .40 Soviets .37 Agriculture .25 Citizen .17 1960 2 Agriculture .53 CPSU .45 Ministry .20 3 Congress .82 CPSU .73 5 Year plan .28 Ministry .26, Ag. Machinery .23 Industry .15 6 Success .59 5 Year plan .37 USSR .27 Ministry .20 Citizen .17 Science .16 3 USSR .55 CPSU .21 CC .79 CPSU .71, Khrushchev .40 Agriculture .33 4 USSR .60 Citizen .40 US .31, Khrushchev .28 Government .18 l CPSU .89 Congress .71 CC .69 Brezhnev .50 USSR .38 Government .25 US .22 Quality .15 4 Quality .38 Industry .37 Transport .27 Consumer Goods .21 Ministry .20 Specialization .20 Congress .16 Building .15 1964 2 Science .64 Education .60 5 Consumer Goods .45 Culture .41 1972 2 Education .63 Science .52 Specialization .3O 5 Ministry .47 Building .41 Government .34 Industry 16 CC .15 3 Government .63 Building .37 Ministry .24 Industry .23 Science .19, Khrushchev .16 Agriculture .16 3 Soviets .62 Agriculture .58 Congress .19 CPSU .16 Specialization .16 6 Culture .52 USSR .19 Cluster Letters: 210 Pravda Ukrainy Congress .73 Communist , Construction .61 CPSU .59, Stalin .55 USSR .52 5 Year plan .22 Science .16 4 Consumer Goods .57 Culture .46 7 Industry .46 Ministry .39 Science .15 1 Agriculture .71, Ag. Produce .71, Corn .60 Ag. Workers .40, Ag. Machinery .33 CPSU .27 4 Consumer Goods .55 Culture .50 Soviets .44 Komsomol .29 1952 2 Agriculture .72, Ag. Produce .65 Science .18 5 CPSU .60 CC .56 Communist , Construction .25, Lenin .23, Stalin .22 1960 2 USSR .66, Khrushchev .60 US .52, Peace .41 Citizen .39 Government 24 Military .23 5 Science .57 Education .52, Specialization .37 3 Science .64 Education .50 6 * Lenin .61, Stalin .36 USSR .15 3 CC .70 CPSU .65, Specialization .25, Khrushchev .18, Ag. Machinery .l6 6 Komsomol .54 Ag. Workers .34 Education .22 CPSU .18 211 Cluster Letters: 8 Ministry .47 USSR .23 Industry 22 Komsomol .18 Culture .15 Government 15 Military .15 1212. 2 Ag. Produce .84 Agriculture .54 5 Year plan .42, Automation .32 Success .24 5 USSR .49 Ministry .35 Government .30 Building 28, Lenin .24 Science .16 8 * Automation .51, Specialization .19 Agriculture .17 Bakinskii Rabochi 7 Military .55 US .23 USSR .22 1 Congress .78 CPSU .75 CC .53, Lenin .35, 5 Year plan .23 USSR .16 4 Hitler .68 WWII .67 USSR .24 7 Transport .61 Ministry .24 Building .19 l * Stalin .79, Lenin .72 USSR .65 Communist , Construction .63 CPSU .39 1952 2 Ag. Produce Agriculture MTS Congress Ag. Workers Success 3 Education .65 Science .55 Specialization .50 Ministry .30 6 Building .48 Industry .34, Automation .27 Congress .21, 5 Year plan .20, Lenin .15 3 Oil .68 Success .40 USSR .29 Industry .33 Science .27 Government .17 212 Government .20 Congress .19 Ag. Workers .15 Success .15 4 Building .65 Industry .45 Agriculture .38 Ministry .22 7 5 Year plan .60 Ideological , Workers .49 CPSU .40 Congress .40 1 Ag. Produce .81 Agriculture .70 CC .42 Automation .39 CPSU .24, Specialization .20 4 Science .70 Education .49 Oil .27, Specialization .25 Ministry .21 CPSU .19 5 Education .70 Science .53 Ministry .26 CPSU .20 Culture .19 Oil .18 Congress .16 8 Ag. Workers .50 Government .38 Consumer Goods .23 5 Year plan .20, Stalin .16 1960 2 CPSU .79 CC .64 Communist , Construction .44 Congress .39, Khrushchev .19 5 Culture .56 Consumer Goods .54 6 Culture .71 Consumer Goods .35 Education .17 9 Specialization .52 Science .21 3 * Khrushchev .56 Government .56 USSR .47 CPSU .17 CC .17 Congress .15 Citizen .15 6 Citizen .39, Khrushchev .33 Building .26 Culture .17 Communist , Construction .16 213 7 Oil .34 Industry .33, Automation .25 Science .21 CPSU .21 CC .18 l CPSU .80 Congress .69 CC .66, Lenin .27 Science .16 4 Culture .47 USSR .34, Lenin .30 Government 22 7 Quality .45 Specialization .45 5 Year plan .19 1972 2 * Ag. Produce .78 Agriculture .59, 5 Year plan .36 CPSU .23 5 Ministry .57 Quality .24 Culture .21 Education .16 8 Industry .51 CPSU .19 Education 17 Specialization 17 *Ideological items. The previous analysis of letter themes indicates that the major topics relate to industrial and agricultural development and consumer goods. write in on Party work, and the work of local Soviets, depending upon the paper to which the letter is written. In addition to these topics, Party members also 3 Education .65 Science .62 6 'k 5 Year plan .47 Government .30 Congress .17 The cluster letters 214 certainly reflect the letters' preoccupation with domestic affairs. For some years there are no apparent standard, international themes. At most, only one cluster per paper, per year appears. This reflects the very small number of letters on international relations for these years, as in 1952 with six percent for Pravda and two percent for Izvestia. These stereotyped clusters always include the USSR, U.S. and/or NATO, and military, with oil or the Third World included sometimes. This indicates conflict or competition, with possible conflict between the USSR and the West. The letter outlined is a standard one, and depending upon the contemporary situation is either an expression of outrage at some recent action, or a "be friendly but keep your powder dry" type. A surprise, both in the inter- national and domestic letters, is the lack of classical type ideological words such as capitalist, fascist, colonialist, imperialist, or the names Marx or Engels. "Communist construction" and Lenin are the only such terms which appear frequently, Lenin reappearing as a topic of conversation in Eraygg_after a lapse during the Khrushchev years. During his years in power, Khrushchev appears in conjunction with all general types of letters, inter- national and domestic, industry, agriculture, political, and ideological, but never is named with Lenin. The word Brezhnev occurs only once, in 1972, in the broad first cluster "letter" for Izvestia. Obviously as a legitimacy instrument, or a measure of personal esteem, Stalin is often linked with Lenin in the clusters for 1952. There always seems to be the need to have a proper name to use with the broad, grandiose plans for the future 215 type letters. And since in 1972 the political situation was still fluid, Lenin was reintroduced instead. Other ideological terms used are production related, usually in agriculture. In viewing the clusters over time, a number of distinct 1etter types reappear consistently. Apart from the basic inter- national relations cluster mentioned earlier, there is an education- science-specialization cluster which appears throughout the period reflecting in each paper, the Soviet emphasis on a technically based education and the need for more skilled labor in all fields. Another continuing theme is that of agriculture/agricultural produce/agricultural machinery/automation, which emphasises the belief that consolidation of smaller kolkhozes into larger state farms, and the introduction of more automated procedures will solve chronic problems. When a letter complains of problems it usually places the blame on lack of machinery, and when success is reported it is due to its availability. A third continuing theme is the linking of Party themes with science and the 5 year plan, a call for improvement through the use of various technological/ managerial/sociological techniques all labeled "science.“ There are constant themes in the two republic papers which differentiate them from Pravda and Izvestia. In Bakinskii Rabochi there is constant reference to the local industry which is oil, and the Ukrainian paper is dominated by agricultural clusters. One unique cluster occurres in Pravda Ukrainy in 1972; Hitler/WWII/USSR. The reason for the appearance of this letter was a remarkable series of articles and letters on the thirtieth anniversary of the great 216 battles that surged across the republic. There was a column in the paper for people who had lost relatives, or who simply wished to recall some memory of that time to write in. Industry and consumer goods show changing patterns over the time period. Industry is usually linked with building/construction industry. The construction of new industrial plants, and consumer goods are linked with culture, as in promising to raise the level of con- sumer goods and the general cultural level of the workers. Between 1952 and 1968, both are sometimes absent from any cluster for a paper even though, after CPSU, CC, and agriculture, they are the most frequently appearing words. The problem is that they do not cluster with the other key words in the list. A difficulty is that more specific terms in the case of consumer goods and obviously not the correct specific terms in the case of industry, have been included in the list. In 1968 the two terms often link with quality and transportation, reflecting the increasing voice of complaints dealing with the shoddy quality and faulty distri- bution of Soviet consumer products. The results, then, must be seen as mixed. The key words clusters do give a good picture of typical letters. They are usually domestic themes, dealing with local concerns. They are often production oriented, citing successes and explaining failures to reach norms. And, they often invoke the name of the present leader and CPSU in rallying calls for improvement. Constant themes, such as technical education and agricultural automation expansion are clearly identified. Other problems in industry and consumer 217 goods however, are not clustered well, either because the general patterns of the letters are the same (usually complaints), or the individual cases are unique, or the correct key words were not chosen for the analysis. In general this form of analysis adds more flavor than substance to a search for measures of public opinion through the linking of ideological terms or the lack of them. Proper names may be especially useful in a study of the on going political process, although a Conquest or Tatu type name count might be just as effective for this purpose. Another idea might be to analyze each type of letter separately, though new word lists would still be necessary. Certainly, the technique is not sufficient by itself for an analysis of public opinion. And, the time and effort expended on extracting key words and coding them, makes the techniques unsuitable for a large scale study. For a spot study of a short time period, however, it could be useful as a check on other measures such as theme count, as well as adding flavor to a simple theme count. List of Hypotheses--Data Evidence In Chapter III a number of predictions concerning the data were made. These hypotheses involved correlations between letter and author characteristics, and the general patterns which the data would follow. As the data permitted, I have commented on the evidence available concerning these hypotheses. Because of the great amounts of data presented and the confusing number of tables, however, I will list these hypotheses in the order in which they 218 were given in Chapter II along with a very brief statement of the findings which related to them. Indicators of Editorial Selection Bias 1. Varience in subject and intensity may be indicators of the limits of bias by editorial workers. There is some fluctuation over time in subject matter and intensity in the All-Union level papers while there is less in the Republic level papers. All papers show a similarity of subject matter for the entire time period. 2. A second indication is the author profile when compared to the cited studies of letters received by Izvestia and Komsomolskaya 21m. Blue collar workers are under-represented and professional and Party-Government occupations are over-represented. Sex_ 1. Women write a higher proportion of complaints than men. 2. Women will use ideology less frequently than men. No conclusive evidence found because of a tremendous fluctuation from year to year probably due to the small N for women. Education 1. The more education the lower the proportion of complaints. 2. The lower the education the more letters will deal with consumer goods and services. 3. The lower the education the fewer ideological references. 219 No conclusive evidence because of small N for non-college education. However, the evidence given next dealing with occupation does tend to confirm these hypotheses. Occupation 1. Working class members are more likely to complain than white collar professionals. 2. Working class members are more likely to deal with consumer goods and services. 3. Working class members are less likely than white collar professionals to use ideology. These hypotheses were confirmed by the data. CPSU Membership l. CPSU members will make fewer complaints than non-members. 2. CPSU members will use ideology more frequently than non-members. These hypotheses were confirmed by the data. Residence 1. Rural authors will tend toward non-Party/non-educated behavior when compared to urban authors. This was not confirmed by the data. There was little difference between the two groups except that rural authors tended to write more frequently on agricultural topics. 220 Attitude and Public Opinion 1. Over the 20 year span, there will be a decrease in the use of ideology. This is true from 1952 to 1968 with a reversal in 1972. 2. Over the 20 year span, more negative comments will appear and attitudes, as measured by the five point scale, will decrease. The evidence is mixed for the All-Union papers, and the hypotheses are not confirmed for the Republic papers. 3. Technical and professional people will, over the 20 year span, form a larger proportion of the letter writers, and become more negative in their attitudes. The evidence is mixed at both levels. There are fluctuations throughout the data on both occupation and attitude measurement. In reviewing the possible uses of the letters as a PUBLIC FORUM, only letters with consumer related issues were discussed with any varience in view, limiting their usefulness in this sense. In looking at the letters as a SAFETY VALVE, it is apparent that the All-Union level papers have the potential to be either a safety valve and/or problem solver. In practice, they attempt to be a problem solver, with Bragg; being the more successful of the two, although neither has an impressive success rate. As an AGITATION- PROPAGANDA AGENT, the letters provide another vehicle, with all subjects frequently using ideological terms (except consumer related themes). However, this use is continually decreasing. As a LINK WITH THE MASSES, the letters seem to be most useful. The 221 data from letters are praised for their potential value, and are actually utilized. In this sense letters are useful to the leader- ship as a guide to public opinion. For the researcher, the letters provide a view on problems of policy and administration at the local level as expressed by individuals frequently at the lower end of the SES scale, thus, providing a valuable insight into the micro workings of the society. The major value of this research has been to map out the parameters of the letters themselves and the population of letter authors, thereby allowing for some estimation of both the potential and the limitations of letter data. With a continuing lack of other sources of opinion data, the potential of letters data is worth the effort. With the limitations of author and editorial biases acknowledged, and the scope of these biases charted, the information gained may provide a source of information on an area which otherwise would remain relatively unknown. Chapter IV--Footnotes 1See Hollander, £9, £i£,, for this problem, pp. 59-69. 2Compare for example with Davydchenkov's figures presented in Chapter III of this paper. 3Of course, Izvestia at this time was edited by Khrushchev's son-in-law, Aleksei Adzhubei. Given Khrushchev's unique ideas for democratization of Party and society, and his push for consumer policies, the political implications of this is obvious. 4See both Mickiewicz, £2, £i£,, and Dave Lane, Politics and Society in the USSR (New York: Random House, 1971). 5 6 7See Chapter III of this paper for discussion, especially on Ivanova. Mickiewicz, Handbook, £2, £15,, pp. 1-49. See Chapter III of this paper for discussion. 8See Chapter IV of this paper for discussion of follow-ups. 9See Kaiser, £9, £i£,, and discussion in Chapter III of this paper for problems facing the Soviet Journalist. 10$ee the first section of this chapter on letter charac- teristics for a discussion of this. 1]See Chapter III of this paper for a discussion of grass roots criticisms and Soviet literature. 12Inkeies, 9p, 91; , p. 212. 13See Mickiewicz, Handbook, £2, £13,, pp. 29-34, and Egg, pp. 574-76. 14Ibid., p. 577. 15Partiinaya Zhizn, "Rabota c Pismami Trudyashikhsya-Vazhnoe Partinoe delo:"'March 5, 1974, pp. 3-7. 16Ibid., p. 4. 17Ibid., pp. 4-6. 222 223 18Ibid., pp. 6-7. 19Cited in Mickiewicz, 399, 99, £1; , p. 569. 20Lewis A. Dexter, "Communications Pressure, Influence on Education?," People and Society_and Mass Communications, ed. by Lewis A. Dexter and David Manning White—(New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), pp. 394-409. «'1' 21Sussman, 99, £1__ 22 ('0' Roberts, 99, ci 23Ibid., p. 747. APPENDIX A 224 1225 ubbmmu oo go o. g. oo go .. go o g. o go o g. goo: o. oo.o oo go o. go o. go o g. . go o.oooz oo go o. go o. go o go o g. o g. ogoo...z o.o go oo go. oo go o. go oo go. .o go o. go ooo.go.oo ooooo oo. go oo go oo go oo go o. go o. go o. go ooooogz oo. go oo go oo go o. go o go .. go o go oo.oooooo oo. go oo go oo go oo go o. go oo go o. go goo .o go o. go .. go o go o go o. go o go os.oo oo. go oo go oo go o. go o. go .o go o go ooo.>ooo u..ooo o.. go oo go oo go o. go o go o. go ooooo ooEooooo ooo go. oo go oo go oo go. o go oo go. .. go oooo.oo.ooo ooo go. oo g.. oo go. oo go. oo go. oo go. oo g.o ooooooo. oo. go .o go oo go oo go o go o. go o go oooo.oo oo go .. go o. go .. go o. go o go o g. ooo.>oo ooo go. oo go oo g.. oo go. oo go. oo g.. o. go ooo.go.oo .ocoouocoouco o.o go oo go oo go oo go o. go oo go oo go. goo; ooooo .o. go o. go oo go oo go o go .o go o g. ooo.ooo. o.ogoo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. goooooo .oogoum ”ooooooo--..g ooooo 226 oo go o go o. go o go . go o g. ooo: o. oooo oo go oo go oo go oo go o go . go o.oooz o. g. o go o g. o g. . go o g. ooog...z oo go o. go o g. o. go o go oo go ooo.oo.oo ooooo oo. go oo go .o go oo go o go oo go ooooo.= oo. go oo go oo go oo go o go o. go ooooouooo .o. go oo go oo go oo go oo go o. go goo oo go o. go oo go oo go o go o go oe.oo .o. go oo go oo go oo go oo go. oo go ooo.>ooo u..ooo oo. go oo go oo go .o g.. o. go o go ooooo ooEooooo oo. go oo go oo go oo go oo go. .o g.. ooog.oo.ooo .oo go. oo go. .o go. oo go. oo go. oo go ogooooo. oo. go .o go oo go. oo go o go o. go oooo.oo oo. go o. go oo go oo go oo go oo go. ooo.>oo oo. go. oo go oo go. oo go oo go. o go ooo.oo.oo Focoouocomch oo go o go o g. o g. . go o. go goo: ooooo oo go o. go oo go o g. o go oo go. ooo.ooo. o.oooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. goooooo .oouom>~H ouumnnzmnu.HHx w4moo oo. go oo go oo go oo go o go o. go o. go ooo .>oo oo. go oo go oo go o. go o go oo go oo go. -ooooo xgooa oo. go oo go oo go oo go o. go oo go o. go +oo ooooo o.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. .ov>ooa ”cooooaoouo oo:u:<--.ox.x momoo o go o. go o g. . go o go -ooooo ooooo o. go oo go o g. o g. o g. +oo ooooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ”mommmomm "ooogoooooo ooogoo--.og.g ooooo 230 o go .. go o go o go o. go ooEo.ooo g.og o go o go o go o go o go o. go ooooooz googooo o go o go o go oo.oooooo oozoo . g. o go . g. . go . go . g. oo..oo oo.o3 o. go o go o go o g. o. go o go go.go< o g. o g. . go o go Loco.oooo o go o go ogog...z o go o g. o go o go o go o g. oo..oooooo o. go o g. o go o go . go goooooo o. go o g. o go. oo go o. go o. go o.Eooooo o. go o. go o go o. go o. go o. go oo...gooooeooo o g. oo go o go o. go o go o. go Logooz .oo o. go o. go o go o. go o. go o. go Logooz o go o go o go o g. o go o go -ooooo .ooo o. go o go o go o go o go o go +oo .>oo oo go oo go . go. o. go .. go o. go -ooooo ogooo o g. . g. . g. o g. o. go . g. +oo otoo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ozuoamm wwxocwxmm ocoogx: ov>oom .goooooo ..goo.gooogo.oogo oo>ooo ”cowgoaaouo Logg:<--.ox.x momoo .>oo ouooo ogooo .oo>ooo "ou:.o.oeoo g x coogoooououu.oxx oooo. 232 o goo o g.. o. go o go. .. gm. oo go. ooo. ooo. w gm. o. gom mo go o go. o g.. .o. go ooo. o goo o go . go o go o goo oo goo ooo. o go. o goo o. go . go o goo mo go ooo. m gmm o goo o. go o go o go .m gm. ooo. oomoocoz .oo ogoogo< ooo»...z ogoo ou.smo ogogooo omzoo -.ocoooo -oo< mo gom o go o. goo oo go. on go. o goo o. go ooo. ooo. mo gmo o goo mo g.o m. go. oo go o. go. om go ooo. om gom . go oo goo o gm. o. go. o goo o go ooo. o go o go o. goo o. go o. go . go o go ooo. o. go . go o gm. .o go. no go. o go o go ooo. oomxoo: oomgooz oomxooz -ooooo +oo -ooooo +oo .omo .o< .>oo .>oo ogooo ogooo 111111.1.|I111r11111.1111 1111 .11 111 1111111 .o.goo>o. ”ooo.o.oaoo g g oo.ooooooo--.oxg ooooo 233 o go o go o go o go o go oo go ooo. o. go o go o. go o go o go o. go ooo. o. go. o go o go o go o go o. go. ooo. oowoocoz .oo ogo.go< ooog...z ooo. oooemo oooguoo omzoo -.o:oooo noo< m. gmo o. go o. go. o go o go o. go m go ooo. o. go o go o. go o go o goo .. go. o. go ooo. o. go o. go o. go. o goo o go o. go . go ooo. oomxooz oomxooz oomgooz -ooooo +oo -ooooo +oo .omo .o< .>oo .>oo xgooo ogooo xc.ooxo oo>ogo .11 111.11. ..oooooo ..goo.gooooo.oogo oooooo Hoo....oEEoo g x co.goo=ooo--.oxx ooooo .>oo ogooo ouooo .oooooo ..goo.goo .umocopcounu.uxx mom c>| g} F F GOONFOOOCNNOOr—OOl M N c: c: c: o: o- c: c: co co c: 04 c: c: a: CD CD LO F or—omooooooe—oooool o. o o .osoosog ooo.ooo ooo.omo. oooooozmz ooooo omsoocoo ooo.go.mm ooooo ooogo.: =o.gooooo go< we.oo ooo.>omo u..ooo mo:g.=o.oo< oguoooc. mocmooo ogm.>oo ooo.uo.mm .ocoogocomoco goo: ogooo .ooo. ooo. moo. ooo. ooo. .oo>ooo moo. ooo. uuwwoom o+oo gomnooo on coogoooouo ogooouu.o.xx oooomo u..ooo mo:g.:u.oo< PP oggoooc. mocm.oo ogm.>om v—NOVONNNOr—Q'NNOOI—r- oooopooopomp—oooolg OI—‘OLONI—r—OONQ'r—OOOF‘ OOOr-LONOOOr—OOOOOO' ooomoooooo-o-ooooolm FPOLDKOOFOOOWOOCPO'R ooo.—oooooor-oooooi ocoogo.mm .o:o.gocomgco ooo: ouooo to l\ LO N e l— O F F as N F .muoo ooo. woo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. pumnoom .oo>ooo "-oo gumnooo on coopoooooo ogoooua.o.xx oooomo u..o:o wo:u.=u.oo< oggoouc. mocwouo ogmo>oo ooo.go.mm .ooo.gocomgc. goo: ougoo .ogo. ooo. woo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. goooooo “+oo gomnooo on :o.goooouo gochom>oo--.u.xx oool ox O ooo.—oooopooooooolm oomo o..o:o mo:g.:u.go< oggoooco mucmooo ogmo>oo ocoogo.wo .oooggocomgc. goo: ouooo .ogoo ooo. woo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. goooooo "-oo goooooo go oo.ooooooo goosoooooo--.o.gg ooooo 239 o o. o oo oo o. oo oo o ooooooo g ooooo .111. 1111 .1111 goo: o. og.o go o.oooz go oooo...z goo go goo goo go go. goo go. goo ooo.go.oo ooooo goo go. ogogooz go oo.gooooo go goo go go go. oegoo go go go. go go. ooo.>ooo u..ooo go go go. go go. ooooo oosooooo go. goo go go go goo ooog.oo.ooo go. go goo goo goo oogoooo. go mucm rum go ogo.>oo go go. go. .o.. go. go. g.. goo: ogooo go go go ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. goooooo omxoo: .o< goose: .mo>mgo opumnnom x coouoooouou1.mex momomo oo.ooo go. g.. gm ooooo Logoocoo go go goo go go goo goo 23.822 g.o gmm _ gm. g.o goo goo ougoooco gm gm. go muco.oo gm go go ogmo>oo go go. go g.. .m.H go go g.. goo: ogooo go. go. ooo.omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. moo. ooo. gomnoso om...xo\:osmooo Logooz .o< .omocoucoo11.m.xx m4mooo oo.ooo go go go ouooo Lossocou go go. go. go g.. oooo.=u.ooo go go go. go. go. go. go. g.o oooooooo goo goo goo go. go. goo ooooooo go go g. g. go go ooo.>oo go go go go go go. go go .o.. go go ooo; ooooo go go go go. go go. ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo ooooooooo.ooo uosooouo oomoomo "ouooooo g ooooooouoo--.o.gg oooo. 242 oo o. o o .. o o. .o oo "ooo..oo o oo.o. ..... ..... ..... ooo: o. oo.; m .93: go ooo»...z goo goo go. go. goo oooooo.oo ooooo go. go. ooooo.: co Ewan—um goo g.o goo ooo 95:5 go. goo go ooo.>ooo u..ooo go goo goo go. go go ooooo oooooooo go goo oooo.=o.ooo goo goo goo goo g.o goo go go ogooooo. wucmwum go. ooo.>oo go. go. go. go. go go .o.. go. ooo: ooooo go. go ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. oumoooo coegwoso o.ox\ommo:oz ogopuoo Loguo| m lea Ot—FNFOFFOVFmocoo c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: o- c: o- c: c> c: c: c>| a: c: c: c: c: o- .- c: c: c: c: c: c> c: c: c: c>| 04 c: c: c: .- o- c: c: c: c: c: .- c: c: c: c: c>| <- 4omo u..a=o mo:u.=u.om< oguoouc. mucmouo oum.>oo oco.uo.mo .ocoooocomuc. ooo: ouooo .ooo. ooo. mom. oom. com. .o.pom>~. oom. oom. pumnnsm ”+oo ouooooo on oo.ooooooo ooooo--.o.gg oooo. 244 PMPNMPFPOONPOVOO .- .- c: o: c: c: c: c: c: c> .- c: c: c: c: cal a) O P F c: .. c: o» .- .- c: o- c: c: c: c: :3 ca :3 cal c3 c: c: c: .— c: o- c: c: c: o- o- c: c3 CD CD l*r O c: c: c: o- c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: :3 Ir- c> .- .- c: .- c> c: c: c: c: c: c: c: on c3 c3 Ito 4omo u..o=o wozu.:u.om< oguoaoc. mucmouo oom.>oo ooo.uo.mm .oco.uocomu:. goo: ouooo .QHOP oom. mom. ooo. com. ooo. ooo. ouooooo .o.uom>~. "-oo pumooao on co.uoo:uuo swoon--.o.xx ooo<. 245 ONNLOQOQONOO cu «o c: on a) a) a: .- .- u: c: F- c: c: c: c: c: c: |<: F c: a) c: a) u: 04 c: c: 04 o- c: c: c: c: c: cal 21 4omo u..o=o mo:p.=u.om< oguoooc. mo:m.uo oom.>oo oco.uo.mo .oco.uocompc. ooo: ouooo .muoo ooo. mom. ooo. .oopom>~. ooo. oom. oom. ouooooo o+mo pumnnam on cooumaauuo acmscgm>oo--..Hxx m4m a: C>| g} N F c: a: c: a: c: a: .- c: c: r- c: o: c: c: c: c>| c: o- :3 cu cu o- c: c: c: r- c: o- c: c: c: c: Icn l o a: FQOPMOOOOOOPOOOOIN P O PoooPp—Pooooo O m 4 o .oEoosox omo.ouo ooo.omo. Lmoooozmz ooooo omsaocou ooo.uo.mm Loom; ogouo.= coououzum uo< ms.ou omu.>gmo u..n=o mo:u.=u.sm< ogpoouc. mu:m.uo oum.>oo oco.uo.mo .oco.pocomu:. ooo: zoom; .ooo. ooo. mom. ooo. .oooom>o. ooo. oom. ooo. oumoooo “-oo ouooooo on oo.ooooouo ooosoooooo--.o.gg oooo. 247 . o . o. oo oo o. o oooooooo o ogmo u..n:o go go. go. ooooo Lagoocoo goo. go goo go. 23 .8 Zoo goo g.o go goo oguoooc. g.. mucm.uo g.. go. mum.>oo go. go .o.. go. ooo: ouooo goo 30.83 ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. pumoooo omxgoz .o< omxooz .3 38.33. g oo.oooouuo--.o.gg ooo. 248 oo oo oo o o. o o "ooo..oo o oooo. ooo: o. o..o go o.oooz ooo“...z go. go go. ooo.uo.wo ooomo go go go. go. ogogoox go go go. co.umu:oo go go uo< goo me.oo go go g.. goo mmu.>omo u..n=o go. go go goo ooooo Logooooo go g.. go goo goo oooo.=u.ooo goo goo goo goo goo ogooooc. go go go. mu:m.uo go go oumo>oo go go. go go. goo .o.. ooo: anon; go g.o ooo.omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. pumoooo oo...oooooooooo oooooz .oo .Umocwucou--.x.xx uooooo u..ooo go g. go go ooooo oooooooo go go go go oooo.ou.ooo go go. go. go. go. ogooooo. go go goo goo goo goo goo ouoo.uo go go go go. ooo.>oo go. go go go go go go .o.. go g. go ooo: ooooo go goo go. go go. ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooooooo ooooooogo.ooo o.oooouo oooomommo ”ouooooo x oo.ooooouo--...gg oooo. 250 g.. g.. goo go. go. go. goo goo go. goo. goo gmm o. go go go. go gmo go go go oo g.. goo go go go go g.. ommooooo o oomo u..ooo ooooo gasoocoo mo:p.:u.oo< ogooooo. mu:m.uo opmo>oo .o.. ooo: opooo ooo.owo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. coeooogo o.oxoomooooz ogooooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooooooooo.ooo ooooooo .om::.u:ou--..~xx oooomo u..o=o mo:u.=u.oo< oguoaoo. mucmouo oum.>oo ooo.oo.mo .o:o.uocompc. goo: ouooo .ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. -oo .muoo ooo. ooo. ooo. .oc.ooxo oo>ooo +oo ouooooo "Humoooo on co.umo=uuo ougoo--.s.xx ooo<. 252 OOONr—LDOOONOOOv—OO o ooo.—u—ooooooooooolm o ooor-omooooooor-oolo o ooooomooowoooooolo o r—NOfi'Nr-NOOI—r—OOr-OO o opomoomooor—oooooIo o f—f—OF—f—I—OOOOOOOOOOIL‘, o c: c: c: o- o- c: c: c: c: o- c: c: c: o- c: c>| <- o 4 ooo.ouo ooo.omo. Lmoooozmz ooooo omsoocoo ocoouo.mo Loom; ogouo.: co.pou=oo ao< msooo oou.>owo u..o=o mo:p.=u.oo< oguoooc. mucm.uo mum.>oo oco.uo.mo .ocoooocgmoc. ooo: zoom; .ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. -oo .ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. .ocoooxo oo>ooo +oo ooooooo opumoooo on co.ooo:uuo u:mg:om>oo--.ooxx ooo .meooz .o< go goo go g.o go go go ooo. go. go go goo go goo ooo. goo go go. go go. ooo. gmxooz Homoohoo o 4omo u..o=o ouooo gasoocoo mo:u.=u.oo< oguoooo. mu:m.uo opm.>oo .o.. ooo: ougwo ooo.omo. oumoooo ~N:.ooxo oo>ooo “oumoooo x :o.uoo=uuo--.o.xx ooooo 254 o o. o. o o. o oo o. o. "ooo..oo o oo.o. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ooo: o. oo.o o.ogoz go. oooo...z goo goo go go go. ooo.oo.oo ooooo go. goo go. ogooo.: go oo.oouooo goo. goo go. go. go. ooo msooo omum>omo.u..n=o go ooooo gasoocoo goo goo goo go go go go. oooo.oo.ooo go. go ogooooo. goo go. oooo.oo go ooo.>oo go. goo goo .o.. goo ooo: ooooo go goo go go goo ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo o.ooo.ooz.ooo ooooooooo.ooo uosooouo .omocwucoo--.onx oool :: o F P c3 c: c: c: c: p- c: c: c: c: a) o- c: c: c: c>l o c: c: c: .- c: c> .- c> c: c: c: o- c: a) c: c: c: c: c: o- c: c: c: c: c: c: c: r- c: o- c: c>| «) . o c: c: c: c: c: c: r- c: c: c: c: c: c: r- c: cal 03 c> c: c: c3 c: c: c3 c3 c3 c> c: c: c: o- c: :3] o- . o oomo u..o=o mo:u.=u.oo< oguozoc. mucm.uo opmo>oo ooo.po.mo .ocoouocomuc. ooo: ouooo .ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. -oo .muoo ooo. ooo. ooo. .wsuoooo ..xmc.xoo +oo oumoooo ”Homoooo on :o.uoo:uuo ouooo--.o.xx ooo c: c: c>| o- F o OOr—F-r-OOOOOONOOOOILD o oooomooooooooooolo o o ooo.ouo ooo.omo. gmoooozmz ooooo omsooooo o:o.uo.mo ooooo ogooo.: co.goo=oo pg< ms.go omu.>omo u..o:o mozp.30ooo< oguoooc. mucmouo oom.>oo oco.po.mo .oco.uocomuc. goo: ougoo .ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. .mgoo -oo ooo. ooo. ooo. .wguonmm .wxmcoxoo +oo ooooooo 5 opuooooo on coouooouuo pomscom>oo--.o.xx oooo. 257 o. o. o o oo o o. o. o "ooo..oo o oo.o. ooo: o. oo.o o.ogoz ooo»...z go. go go. goo goo goo goo ocoooo.mo Loooo go go. goo go. go. ogoum.: :o.uouooo goo go po< go ms.go goo go go go. g.. omu.>omo u..o=o go. go g.. ouooo smooocoo g.. go. goo goo go. oooo.=o.ooo goo goo goo goo goo goo ogpoooc. go go go mo:m.uo ouwo>oo go. goo .o.. go go g.. ooo: ouooo go go. ooo.omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. uumoooo om...xo\:osmooo Loose: .oo meooz .wcuoaom ooxmcwxoo ouumonam x cowpooouuo--.g.xx oooomo u..o:o go muooo gmszocoo go. g.o goo g.o go go. oooo.ou.ooo go go. go ooooooo. go go. go ouoo.uo go ooo.>oo go. go. .o.. g.. go ooo: ogooo goo go goo goo ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooooooo o.ooo.ooz.ooo . ooooooooo.oo< o.oooooo oommoooooo--.o.gg oooo. 259 .ooopooouuo pogo we moozuoo oo Lungs: .ooou any o. Luggac o.ogz .oo.uoo:uuo was» we m.osmw ucmuowo mop o. pcmuomo o go o go o. go. o go o. go o go cmEo.o;o o.ox oo go o. go o go o go. .. go o go oomoocoz ogopuoo o. goo o. go o goo o goo o goo . goo. co.uouooo ooze; o. goo o go o goo o go o g.. Lo..oo oo.;z o. go .o go oo go .. go oo go o. go. muo.uo< oo go o. go. o. go. o go o. go o go ooo..ocgooo oo go oo go o go o. go oo go oo go u.smoou< oo go oo go o. go o. go oo go o. go oomxooz om...oo o goo . goo. o. go. o go. o. go o goo oomxooz .oo:u.=u.oo< oo go oo go o. go. oo goo oo go o go. oomxooz oo go oo go oo go .. go oo go o. go oomxoo: womanom>oo oo. go oo go oo go o. go oo go oo g.. oomxooz ouooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. flog No.25“. g g oozoooooo--.o>.xx Boo. 260 .oo.ooo=uuo poop mo ogoguso mo Logan: .ouou on» o. gonzo: o.o;z .coouooouuo was» we o.oEmw ocmuomo mg» m. pcmuomo o go o go o go o go o go smoooogo o.ox o go o go o goo o go o go oomoocoz ogopuoo o goo o. goo o goo o go o go :o.uou=oo gmzoo o go o goo o go . go o go oo..oo mu.;3 o. g.. oo go . go o. go o. go ogo.oo< .. go o go o go o go o go ooo..oco=oo oo go .o. go oo go. oo go .o go u.emoou< oo go oo go oo go o go. o. go ogoxgoz om...xo o goo o goo . go o go . go oomxooz .oo:a.:u.oo< o. go. oo go. oo go. o. go o go. oomxooz oo go oo go oo go oo go oo go oomxooz ucwEoom>oo o. go oo go o go. o go o. go. oomxooz ouooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. .mmmmm... 8.2.8 g g oo.ooo=uuo--.o>.gg ooo. 261 .oe.uoo:eee Hosp we ogezpoo we Lungs: .ouep mop mo Longs: m.e;3 .ceopoooeee poop we o.osmw ocmeomo moo o. acmeomo o go .. go o go o go o. go omso.o;o x.ex o go o go. o go o go o go o. go oomoocoz ooeueoo o goo o go. o goo :e.goe=oo ooze; . goo. o goo . go . go . go . go Lo..eo «o.o: o. go o go o go o go o. go o go. ooo.uo< o go. o go o go o go o goo o go opo..oco:eo o. go .o go. o. go oo go o. go o. go e.Eoooe< o. go o. go o go o. go o. go o. go oomxoez om...xo o go oo goo o goo o. go. o go o. go oomxoez .oo:o.:e.oo< o. go. o. go o go o. go o. go o. go oomxoez o. go o. go. o. go o go o go o go oomxoez ocwE:Lm>eo oo go oo go o. go. o. go oo go .. go oomxoez ooooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. .ouoooo .oooo.ooo oo.oooo oo>ooo .ooeeooo .oxo:.xoo\oc.ooxo oo>ooo "o.oEmo g x geopoooeeo--.e>oxx ooooo 262 TABLE XXVa.--Author Education: Pravda/Izvestia. Pravda High Incom- Schoo] p1ete or Less Higher Higher Unknown 1952 1% 2 1% 2 23% 48 75% 155 1956 0% 0 3% 13 18% 72 79% 313 1960 0% 0 1% 3 19% 46 80% 198 1964 0% 2 4% 19 28% 123 68% 301 1968 0% 0 2% 9 38% 167 71% 427 1972 0% 1 0% 1 30% 213 70% 505 Izvestia 1952 0% 1 1% 4 21% 61 77% 228 1957 0% 1 1% 4 14% 42 84% 248 1960 0% 0 0% 0 20% 96 80% 384 1964 0% 0 2% 13 33% 206 65% 414 1968 1972 1% 2 1% 3 31% 125 68% 279 TABLE XXVb.--Author Education: 263 Pravda Ukrainy/Bakinskii Rabochi. Pravda Ukrainy High Incom- Schoo1 p1ete or Less Higher Higher Unknown 1952 0% 0 2% 3 15% 31 83% 170 1960 0% 0 1% 3 14% 35 85% 211 1972 0% 0 0% 0 27% 61 73% 163 Bakinskii Rabochi 1952 0% 0 0% 0 29% 31 71% 76 1960 0% 0 1% 3 18% 50 82% 233 1972 0% 0 0% 0 26% 57 74% 159 264 ooo ooo goo o. go oo g.o o g. o go ooo. ooo. ooo ooo goo oo go .o. g.o o go o go ooo. .oo ooo goo o. go oo go. . go o go ooo. ooo .oo goo o g. oo go. o go o go ooo. ooo ooo goo o g. oo goo o go o go ooo. oopom>oo ooo ooo goo o. go ooo goo o g. o go ooo. ooo ooo goo oo go o.. goo o go o go ooo. ooo ooo goo oo go. o.. goo . go o go ooo. ooo .o. goo o. go oo goo o go o go ooo. ooo ooo g.o oo go oo. goo o go o go ooo. ooo oo. goo o go oo g.o o go o go ooo. .ogo. ozooooo +oo o.ooo o.ooo oooooo. oc=e> \.ee;eo oo.: oo>ooo .o.ooo>o.ooo>ooo ”ooo oooooo--.o.>gg oooo. 265 o.o oo. goo o go oo goo o go o go ooo. ooo o.o goo o g. oo goo o go o go ooo. oo. oo g.o o go oo goo . g. . g. ooo. .oeoooo ..ooo.ooo ooo oo. goo o g. oo goo o go o go ooo. ooo oo. goo o go oo go. o go o go ooo. ooo oo. goo . g. oo goo o go o go ooo. .ooo. ozooooo +oo o.ooo g.ooo ooooooo ocoe> \.ee;eo oo.: oeoogxo oo>ooo ..oeoooo ..ooo.oooooo.oooo oo>ooo “mo< Lospoxx oooNH mm. gem mp am mom xom ow an «N am we No om Rm Nomp Rpm fimm F No pmm ch mm we 0. om m &N me Rm. wmmp «up xmm m w. mom one wp am m &_ mp Ne cm on comp mop pr m x. cm me mp on m RN mp ac mp am comp opp xmw N a. mop xme am an m RN mm on om an amm— mu own N g. cm new m &< M no N am e. gm «mm. ozooooo .moo momma o.m< .ooo o.o.oo mo.oooo ooo .oopomu moon» ou>ooo .ooomm>o.\ou>ooo Homo< uosomomomw oocpo<--.ou.>xx uomogo ..ouoooo o.ooooxoooooooooo oo>ooo "omo< uogooooomo oozu=<--.o..>xx momooo u..ooo oo o.o oo o.o o. o.o o o.o o. o.o o o.o ooooo Logooooo oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o o o.o oo o.o .. o.o oooo.oo.goo oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo ..o oo o.o oo o.o ogooooo. .o o.o oo o.o oo o.o o o.o o. o.o o o.o ouoo.uo .. o.o o. o.o .. o.o o. o.o o o.o o o.o oooo>oo oo o.o oo o.o oo ..o oo o.o oo ..o o. o.o ooo.oo.mo .mcooaocowpcm oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o o. o.o oo o.o oo ..o ooo: ooooo o. ..o oo o.o oo o.o o o.o .o o.o o o.o ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo .oo>ooo ”oooo g ooooooo--.o.o.ggg ooooo 275 o ..o o. o.o o ..o . o.o o o.o ooo: o. mooo oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o o o.o . o.o o.oooz o o.o o o.o o o.o . o.o o o.o ooo»...z o. o.o o o.o o. o.o o o.o oo o.o ocoooo.oo Loooo oo o.o .o o.o oo o.o o o.o oo o.o ogooooo oo o.o oo ..o oo o.o o o.o o. o.o ooooooooo oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o o. o.o ooo o. o.o oo o.o oo o.o o o.o o o.o oeooo oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o oou.>ooo o..ooo oo o.o oo o.o .o o.o o. o.o o o.o ooooo oosooooo oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o .o o.o mooo.ou.ooo oo o.o .o o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o ogooooo. .o o.o oo o.o oo o.o o o.o o. o.o ouooouo o. o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo ..o oo ..o oooo>oo oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o o o.o oooooo.oo .oooouocomuzm o o.o o o.o o o.o . o.o o. o.o ooo: ooooo o. o.o oo o.o o o.o o o.o oo ..o ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo homomoomm "oooo g ooooooo--.ooooggg ooooo 276 o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o . .o.o . o.o ooo: o. «o.o . o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o.oooz o o.o . o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o ooo»...z oo o.o o o.o o. o.o oo o.o o. o.o oo o.o oooooo.mo Loooo o. o.o o o.o o. o.o oo o.o o o.o o. o.o ogooooo o o.o o. o.o o o.o o. o.o o o.o o o.o ooooouooo oo o.o o o.o o o.o .o o.o o. o.o o o.o ooo o o.o .. o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o . o.o «sogo o. ..o oo o.o o o.o o o.o oo o.o oo o.o oou.>ooo o..ooo o o.o oo o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o ooooo gasooooo oo o.o oo o.o .o o.o oo o.o oo o.o oo o.o oooo.ouogo< oo o.o oo o.o o. o.o oo o.o oo o.o o. o.o ogooooo. o o.o o o.o . o.o o o.o o o.o . o.o ouoo.oo o o.o . o.o . o.o o o.o o o.o o o.o ooo.>oo o o.o oo o.o o o.o .. o.o .o o.o o o.o oooooo.oo .ocoouocowuc. oo o.o oo o.o o. o.o o. o.o o. o.o o. o.o ooo: ooooo o o.o o. o.o o. ..o . o.o o. o.o oo ..o ooo.omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo Pguonmm wwxmcwxmm ocoooxz ou>moo ..oooooo ..ooooxooooooogxo oo>ooo "muou x pumwnzmsn.uHHHxxx m4moo o . . o . o. o ooo: oogoo mouom>~H .ow .oo. .oo .oo. .o. .o. .oo .o. .oo .pu .o. .oo .oo .oo .o: o. oo o. oo . oo o o. . ooo.oo.oo Loooo o oo o. oo . o. o. o . o .>Loooooooo.ooo o oo o oo o . o o oooo.ou.ooo o oo o. oo o oo o. . oo o o ogooooo. o o w . o o . oomo>om . oo oo o. . o o o. o. o. ooo: ooooo o o o o . o o o o . o o o o . ooo. ooo. ooo. ou>ogo .oouow>~.\ou>ooo ”ouumnoom umpumpwm co ocoocooo cmoomoaxm--.o>Hxxx u4mooo Pbmttpublbw..ol.ololblomuolfl.ol w. o o o o F ocooqumm Loooo .F o o. oo o o. o o o .>ooo\ooooo.oou oo . oo o o oo . oooo.ou.ooo oo . oo o o F o oguoooo. F F oumo>om .o o . o. o. . o ooo: ooooo wouooom moxoooxoo oIBIoImIPPE.oI.o.oPP.t..oI.o.o.P oo . o F F oo . o oooooo.om ooooo o o oo o o Fo . o ooooo omsooooo mo . .o F . oo F o moouFouooo< oo o o oo . o o. o ogpoooo. o m m F N mpmo>om o. o. F o F. F o ooo: onooo o o o o . o o o o . o o o o . ooo. ooo. ooo. ..oooooo ..ooooxooooo.ooxo oo>ooo ”oooooooo omooo.oo oo ooooo.oo oooooooxo--.o>.ggg oooo. 279 o. goo oo goo. .. goo. o goo. o goo o goo. ooo: o. oooo o. goo o. goo o goo . goo. o go o go o.oooz o. go o. go o go o go . o go o go oooo...z oo go. oo goo o. go oo go .o go o. go ooo.oo.oo ooooo oo go oo go oo go o. go o. go o. go ooooooo oo go oo goo o. go o go .. goo o goo ooooouooo oo go oo go oo go o. go oo go o. go. ooo o. g.o .. goo o goo o goo o. goo. o goo. weooo oo goo oo goo o. goo o. goo .o goo o goo ooo.>ooo u..ooo oo goo oo goo o. go. o goo o. goo o go ooooo Logooooo oo goo oo go oo go o goo oo go. .. goo oooo.oo.oo< oo goo oo goo oo go. oo goo oo goo oo go. ogooooo. .o go oo go oo go o g.. o. go o go ooooooo .. goo o. goo .. goo o. goo o goo o go oooo>oo oo goo oo g.o oo goo oo goo oo goo o. goo oooooo.oo chowumcsmch oo go. oo go oo go o. go. oo goo oo goo ooo; ooooo o. go oo go oo go. o go. .o go. o goo ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. oomooum ”ooooo.oEoo g g oomoooo--.o>xxg oooo. 280 o goo o. goo. o goo . go o goo ooo: o. oooo oo goo oo goo oo goo o go . goo. o.oooz o go. o go o go . go o goo ogooo..z o. g.o o goo o. ooo o go. oo go oooooo.oo ooooo oo go .o go oo go o go oo go ogooo.= oo go. oo goo oo goo o go. o. go. ooooouooo oo go oo go oo go. oo go o. go ooo o. goo oo goo oo goo o goo o goo oeooo oo goo oo g.. oo goo oo goo oo go oouo>ooo oo.ooo oo goo oo goo .o goo o. go. o go ooooo Logooooo oo go oo go oo goo oo go .o go. oooo.ou.ooo oo g.o .o go. oo goo oo goo oo goo ogoooooo .o go oo go oo go. o go o. go ooooooo o. g.o oo g.o oo g.o oo goo oo goo oooo>oo oo goo oo g.o oo goo oo goo o goo oooooo.oo Foooouocomucn o go. o goo o goo . goo. o. go ooo: ooooo o. goo oo go. o go o go oo go ooo.oooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo ”mommwomw ”ooooo.oe°o g g ooooooo--.o>xxx ooooo 281 o go o go o go o goo. . goo. . goo. ooo: o. oo.o . go o go o go o goo o go o go o.oooz o go . go o go o go o go o go ogoo...: oo go o go o. go oo go o. go oo g.. oooooo.oo ooooo o. go o go o. oo oo go o go o. go ooooooo o go o. go o goo o. go o go. o go ooooouooo oo go o go o goo .o go o. go o go. ooo o go .. goo o go o go o goo . goo. os.oo o. goo oo g.o o goo o goo oo go oo go. omu.>ooo u..ooo o goo oo goo o go o goo o go. o goo ooooo oosooooo oo go oo go .o go oo go oo go oo go oooo.oUooo< oo go oo go o. goo oo go oo go. o. g.. ogooooc. o go o go . go o go o go . go oooo.uo o go . go . goo. o go o goo o goo ooo.>oo o goo oo go. o goo .. goo .o goo o go ooo.oo.oo Focoopocowucm oo go oo go o. g.o o. go o. go. o. goo ooo: ooooo o goo o. go o. go . go o. go oo go ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo Fguonmm woxmcoxmm ocooox: ou>ooo ..oooooo ..ooooxoooooooooo oo>ooo "ooooo.oooo g g ooooooo--.u>gxx ooooo 282 oo. oo oo oo oo oo ooooo . g. ooo: o. oooo o go o go . go o go o.oooz . g. . go oooo...z oo go. o go o go o go ooo.oo.oo ooooo m RN xuoumw: o go o go o go o go 538:3 o go o go . go o go ooo .. go o go o go o go. o go. o go _ oeooo oo go. oo goo o g.o o go . go o g.. oou.>ooo u..ooo oo go. o go o go. o go. o go. o go. ooooo Losooooo o. go. o go. o go. o go o g.o . go o.oo.oo.ooo o. g.. .. go. o go. o g.. o go. o go ooooooo. N RF mucmwum o go o go . go o g.. o go ooooooo mcowumme o choouocomucH o. go. o go o go o go o g.o o. goo ooo: ooooo . g. . g. . go ooo.ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo .oo>ooo "ooo-zo..oo .o oouooooo--.o.>xxg ooooo 283 eFF VF mm mm ¢N Nm 4ooo u..ooo o. go. o go o. go. o go. o go ooooo Logooooo o go o go . g. . go oooo.ou.oo< o go o. go. o. go. . go ogooooe. o go o go o go o go. . go ouooooo o go o. g.. o. go. o g.o o. g.o oooo>oo o go . g. oooooo.oo Focoopocompcm o go o go . go o go. ooo: ooooo . g. o go . go ooo.omo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ouooooo .o.ooo>o. "ooo-zo..oo oo oooooooo--.o.>ggx ooooo 284 oF oF o oo o mF oomm oanao o ng F goF o goo o goF ouooo owe:o:ou . go. . go. o go . go oooo.ou.oo< o goF F goF o goo o goo F go oguooooo F go mucmouo F go oumo>oo F go ooooquwm Focoopocomuoo F ng F go o goo ooo: ougoo oooFomuH oomF oooF oooF oooF oomF oooF pumnooo .oooooo ..xoo.ooo ocooox: ou>ooo ..oooooo ..ooo.oooooo.oooo oo>ooo ”ooo-zo..oo oo oooooooo--.u.>xgg ooooo 285 .ooouzoFFoo u ooooucooFosoo n .oeoo« oo. oo. oo oo. oo oo oo oo oo oo. oo oo g. go g. go go go go g.. go. ooo: oooooozoz go go go go go go go go o.oooz go. go go go go go go g. oooooo.oo ooooo go go go go go go go go ooooouooo go go g. go go go g. go go ooo go go go go go g. go. go go. go go g.. osooo go. goo goo g.. g.o go go .go go go. g.. go oou.>ooo u..o=o go. go. go . go go. go go. go go. go. go. ooooo oosooooo go. go go. go go. go go g.o go go go oooo.oo.ooo g.. go. go. goo go. go g.. goo go. go. go g.. ogooooo. go go go go go go g.. go. go go ooo.>oo go goo goo go. go. go. oooooo.oo choouocomucF go. go go. go go go go go g.o go. goo go. ooo: ooooo g., g.. g. go go go go go ooo.ooo. oo-oEoo oo-osoo oo-osoo oo-oeoo oo-osoo ooo-oeoo ouooooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. ooomouo ”ooo-zo..oo ooo ooo.o.o§oo oo ouooooo--.o..>ggg ooooo 286 .ooonzoFFoo u ooooucooFasoo u .osooa o.. o.. oo .o. oo oo. oo oo oo .o ooozoz oooo. g. g. go go go ooo: oooooozoz go go. go. go. go go. go o.oooz go go go g. go go go go oooooo.oo ooooo go go go go. go go go go go ooooooooo g.. g. go go g. go go ooo go. go go go go g.. go go go go. oeooo go. go. g.. go go. go goo go. go. go oouooooo u..ooo go. go. go go go. go. go. go go ooooo Logooooo go g. go g. g. go go go go oooo.oo.ooo go go. go. go. go. go go. go go. ogooooo. go go g.. go go. go g.o go. g.o goo ooo.>oo go go. g. goo go. goo go ooo.oo.oo chowuwcgmpcu g. go go go g. go go go. ooo: ooooo g. go go go go ooo.ooo. oo-osoo oo-oeoo oo-oooo oo-oeoo oo-osoo ouooooo ooo. ooo. ooo. ooo. o ooo. .o.ooo>o. “ooo-oo..oo ooo ooooo.osoo oo ouooooo--.o.o>ggg oooo. oFF o go om gFo o go oN goo oF gNF NooF 287 ooo. oo oo goo o go oo goo o. g.o ooo. oo o go .. go. o go oo goo oo goo ooo. oo . go o go o. goo . go ooo. oo . go oo goo o go. ooo. oooom>oo oo. o go oo go. o. go. oo goo oo goo ooo. oo o go o. go. o go oo goo o. go. ooo. oo o goo o go o. goo o go. ooo. oo o go. o go oo goo o g.o ooo. oo o. g.o o goo ooo. oo . go _ oo goo .. goo ooo. Fouoo ocoouomm cooFoxm om>Foo mooeooo om>Foo -ooo . ooz mu>ooo .o.ooo>o.ooo>ooo “ooxoo oo.ouo--ooo-zo..oo--.u..>ggx oooo. 288 .umooeooo acmuomo u mg oom>F0o ucmuomo u mg ooomuumF sagas: Fouoo n o .1 goo goo o go go o go go . o.oooz goo g.o oo go. goo o goo goo o oooooo.oo ooooo goo goo o go goo o go go o oo.oouooo go. goo .. goo goo o goo goo o osooo goo goo oo go goo oo go. go. o ooo.>ooo u..ooo goo goo oo go. g.o o goo. go o ooooo Logooooo goo goo o. go goo o goo goo o oooo.ou.ooo goo go. o. go g.o .. goo go o ogooooo. go. goo o goo goo o go go . oooo>oo goo goo o. goo goo o goo. go o ooo: ooooo ooo. ooo. ooo. go goo o o.oooz goo goo o oooooo.oo ooooo goo goo o oo.oouooo go. goo o go goo. o go goo. o oeooo goo. go o goo. go . goo goo o mouo>ooo u..ooo goo go. o goo goo o goo goo o ooooo Logoocoo goo. go o goo. go o goo. go . «ooo.oo.ooo goo. go o goo. go o goo goo o ooooooo. goo goo o goo. go o oooo>oo goo go o goo go o goo. go o ooo: ooooo og og o og og o .og og o ooo. ooo. ooo. .oo>ooo "oooo. oooooo x ouooooo oo-:o..oo--.o...>ggx ooooo 289 .umooeooo acmuomo u og oom>Foo acmuomo u og ooooume gonzo: Foaoh u o« go goo o g.. goo o o.oooz go goo o goo goo o ooo.oo.oo ooooo goo go o goo goo o oo.oou=oo go g.o o. goo goo o osooo goo g.. o. goo go. o. oooooooo u..ooo goo go. o. goo go o ooooo oooooooo goo go o goo goo o oooo.ou.oo< goo go. o goo go. o. ogooooo. goo goo o goo go. o. ooo.>oo goo goo o ooo: ooooo ooo. ooo. goo goo o oFoooz goo goo o ocooqumm Loam; goo goo o goo. go . ooooooooo go. goo o goo goo o go goo. . oe.oo goo g.o o. goo go o goo. go o oou.>ooo u..o=o goo go o. goo go o goo. go o ooooo oosooooo goo. go . goo. go . oooo.ou.ooo goo goo o. goo. go . ogooooo. goo go. o. goo goo o goo go. o. oooo>oo go goo. o goo. go . goo. go o ooo: ooooo og og o og og o «og og o ooo. ooo. ooo. .o.ooooo. "cogo. oo.ou< g oumoooo oo-:o..oo--.o...>ggg oooo. 290 oF o goo oF goo o goF oooF oF o goo F goF o goo oooF o F goF F goF o goo oooF oguooom ooxocoxoo oo o goo F go oF goo o goF oomF o o gooF oooF oF F go oF goo o goF oooF Fouoo ocoouomo cooFoxo om>Foo mooeooo om>Foo -ooo ooz ocoooxo ou>ooo ..oooooo ..goooooooooooooo oo>ooo "owxoo coouuxxx ooooo oo goo o go oo goo mo goN N gF NooF om goo o go FN gNN oo goo oooF oN goo o . go o gFN oooF oo goo o go o gFN F go oooF oF gFo F go o gFN F go oooF o goF Fo gNo NooF czocxco ox: +oF ox: oFuo ox: ouo ox: N ou>ooo nowooooo.ooo>ooo "oo.. ooo--ooo-zo..oo--.og.xgg ooooo 292 NF NFN N NNF m NN_ NNN. m Now _ go. m mom oom— N NmN m Nmm F NM, Nmmp Psuoamm memcwxmm o NmN N NN m Nmm m gmm NNN. m NmN F gmN comp m Nam _ NN m Nam N amp Nmmp czocxca mx: +Np mxz mp-m mg: N-m ax: N ocwmgxz mo>mgm ._;uonmm wwmemem\Nc_mgx= mu>mga ”mewh mmo--mQ=-zo_Fom--.anxxx momooo ug_ooo go goN goo oN go goN goo g go goN go o ooooo oooooooo goo ggo goo op ggg go goo o go go goo o oooooougooo goo goo goo o_ go goo gog __ go go go o ggoooooo go go goo o go go goo o go go go F oooo>oo go goN go. o_ go goo go o go go goog N ooo: goooo Ngo_ oooo oooo goo go goo N ogoooz go go go o ooogoogoo ooooo go go goo, o oogpouooo go go go. o go go go o go go goo, N «sooo go go goo o go go go _ go go goo o oouo>ooo og_ooo go go goN o go go goo o go go gooo o ooooo oosooooo go goo go N go go goo o go go go _ ooog_oo_ooo go goN goo o go go goN o go go goo, N oggooooo go go goN o go go go N ooog>oo go goN goN o go go goN o go go gNo N ooo: goooo +oF og-o o-o o +oF oo-o o-o g «+g_ oo-o o-o g oooF ooo_ Noop .oo>ooo "oeoo ooo g ouooooo oo-:op_oo--.ogggx oooog 294 .ogooz +oF u +oF ”ooooz oF-o u o.-o mogooz o-o u o-o mooooooo ooosoo _ooog u go go goo goo o go goo gpg o oooooz gg_ go ggg o go go ggo o ooooooooo ooooo go go go N goN go go o oogoooooo go go go op go goo ggo g oegoo goo goo gg_ op go goN goo op moug>ooo uggooo g__ goo gNN o_ go go, goN o ooooo oosooooo goN goN goo o go goo_ go N oooo_oogoo< goo gNN go. o go, goN goo op gooooooo goN goo go o go goo goN op ooog>oo go goN goo o goo: goooo Ngop ooog goo goo go o o_oooz goN goN go o ocooquom Logo; go goo goo N go go go o ooggooooo go_ go_ goN g go go goo N go go goog o oegoo go go goN o_ go goo goo g go go goo o ooug>ooo ugoooo go go goo op go go go o go go ggo o ooooo ooEooooo go go gooF g go go go _ oooo_oogoo< go goo go, op goo_ go go o gooooooo go go, goo op go go go o go go goo o_ ooog>oo go goo goo N go go goog _ go go go o ooo: ooooo +g_ og-o o-o g +g. o_-o o-o g +oF o_-o o-o g ooo_ ooo_ Noog .ogooo>oo “osgo ooo g ooooooo oo-:oggoo--.ogggg ooooo BIBLIOGRAPHY 295 BIBLIOGRAPHY Almond, Garbial and Powell, 6. Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Little, Brown, l966. Barghoorn, Frederick. Politics in the USSR. New York: Little, Brown, 1966. Bauer, Raymond A. and Inkeles, Alex. How the Soviet System Works. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, l956. Berezhnoi, Aleksandr. Russkie Predshestvenniki Leninskoi Pechati. Leningrad, 1969. Blachacov, L. I. Gazeta,pChitatel,fiZhizh: Stati i Ocherki. Tsentralno-Chekhozetno, 1971. Bogart, Leo. "Fan Mail for the Philharmonic." POQ, 13:423-34, 1949. Bogdanov, V. and Vyazemskii, B. Spravochnik Zhurnalista. New Edition; Leningrad, l965. Burlatsky, F. M., et al. Problemy Sotsiologii Pechati. Novosibirsk, 1969. Buzek, Antony. How the Communist Press Works. New York: Praeger, 1964. Commission on Freedom of the Press. A Free and Responsible Press. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967. Converse, Philip E., et al. "Electoral Myth and Reality: The 1964 Election." APSR, 59 (June l965), pp. 32l-323. Datsuka, B. D. Vopro§y_Teorii i Praktikii Massovykh Sredstv Propagandy, Vols. 3-4, Moskow, Izdatelstvo“Mysl,“_T97l. Davis, Hal and Rarick, Galen. "Functions of Editorials and Letters to the Editor." Journalism Quarterly, 4] (Winter 1964), pp. lO8-l09. Davydchenkov, V. and Sliapentokh, V. "Izvestia Izuchat Chitatelya.“ Zhurnalist, No. 2 (February l968). 296 297 . Davydchenkov, V. and Sliapentokh, V. Problemy Sotsiologi Pechati. Novosibirsk, l970. Dawson, Richard and Prewitt, Kenneth. Political Socialization. Boston: Little Brown, 1969. Deutsch, Karl. The Nerves of Government. New York: The Free Press, l966. Dexter, L. W. and White, D. M. People, Society and Mass Communications. New York: The Free Press, 1964. Durham, F. Gayle. News Broadcasting on Soviet Radio and Television. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. l965. The Use of Free Time by Young People in Soviet Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1966. Episkopsov, G. L. Gazety,SSSR l9l7-l960: Bibliograficheskii Spravochnik. Moscow, l970. Fagen, Richard R. Politics and Communication. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966. Farley, James A. Behind the Ballot. New York: Harcourt, Brace, l938. Finn, A. Experiences of a Soviet Journalist. New York: Research Program on the USSR, l959. Forsythe, Sidney. "An Exploratory Study of Letters to the Editor and the Contributions." Egg, l4:134-4, l950. Foster, H. Schuyler and Fredrich, Carl J. "Letters-to-the-Editor as a Means of Measuring the Effectiveness of Propaganda." APSR, 31:7l-79, 1937. Gerasimov, N. "Sovetskaia Sibir." Partiinaia Zhizh, No. l6 (August 1967). Gerbner, George. "Mass Communications and Popular Conceptions of Education: A Cross-Cultural Study." U. S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 876, 1964. . The Analysis of Communications Content. New York: Wiley, 1969. Gleek, L. E. "Ninty-Six Congressmen Make Up Their Minds." Egg, 4:3-24, l940. 298 Gorokhoff, Boris. "Publishing in the USSR." University of Indiana, l959. Grey, David L. and Brown, Trevor R. "Letters to the Editor: Hazy Reflections of Public Opinion." Journalism Quarterly, 47 (Autum 1970), pp. 450-463. Hahn, Jeffry. "Palitical Socialization in the USSR: The Komsomol and the Education System." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 1971. Harmon, H. H. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of of Chicago Press, l967. Hazan, Baruch. "Agitation and Propaganda Agents of Social Mobilization in the USSR." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Syracuse University, l97l. Hollander, Gayle Durham. Soviet Newspapers and Magazines. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 1967. Soviet Political Indoctrination. New York: Praeger, l972. Hopkins, Mark. Mass Media in the Soviet Society. New York: Pegasus, l970. Horking, William E. Freedom of the Press. Chicago, 1947. Horst, Paul. Factor Analysis of Data Matrices. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Hough, Jerry. "The Soviet System: Petrification of Pluralism?" Problems of Communism, March-April, 1972. Igoshin, S. "Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta." Seriia XI. Zhurnalistika, 4:43-50, 1966. . "Audience Polls: A Summing Up." Partially translated in The Soviet Press, 7 (Summer l969), pp. l9-24. Inkeles, Alex and Geiger, Kent. "Critical Letters to the Soviet Press." American Sociological Review, 17 (December 1952), pp. 694-703, and l8 (February l953}, pp. l2-23. Public ijnion in Soviet Russia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, l968. International Press Institute. The News From Russia. Zurich, l952. 299 Ivanova, R. F. "Pervy Opyt Konkretnyi Sovetskoi Pechati." Vestnik Seriya XInghurnalistiki, No. 2 (March-April 1967). Kaiser, Robert G. Russia. New York: Atheneum, l976. Kassof, Allen. Prospects for Soviet Society. New York: Praeger, l968. Kayser, Jacques. One Week's News. Paris: UNESCO, l953. Khoriev, Y. Pecham Tereka i Tsarskaia Tenzura. Ordzhonikidze, l97l. Klempner, John A. "People Who Write In: Communication Aspects of Opinion-Letter Writing." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. KPSS SK. 0 Partinoi i Sovetskoi Pechatprartinoi. Moscow, l964. Kriesberg, Martin. "What Congressmen and Administrators Think of the Polls." £_Q, 9, l945. Kuzin, Vladilen. "Raionnaia Sevodnia i Zabtra." Zhurnalist, No. 3 (March l968), pp. 3-4. Lander, Byron, G. "Functions of Letters to the Editor: A Re- Examination." Journalism Quarterly, 49 (Spring l972), pp. l42-43. Lane, David. Politics and Society_jn the USSR. New York: Random House, l97l. Lasswell, Harold, et al. The Comparative Study of Symbols. Hoover Institute, Stanford University Press, l952. Lenin, V. 1. "Letter to Wfirttenberg in 1899." Lenin Miscellany III. Selected Works II. Collected Works. New York: Prager, 1965. Little, Shelley. George Washington. New York: Minton, l929. Long, Luigi, et al. Problemi e Realta Dell 'URSS. Rome: Riconiti, 1958. Markham, James N. Voices of the Red Giants. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1967. Martinez, C. E. and Suchman. "Letters from America and the 1948 Election in Italy." 399, l4:lll~l25, l950. 300 Maslowski, Wladyslaw. "Listy Do Szczecinskich Dziennikov." Zeszyty Prasoznawcze, l966, 7:2-3, 54-68, from Sociological Abstracts, Vol. 17, No. 3 (1969). p. 27. Mearns, David C. The Lincoln Papers. New York: Doubleday, 1948. Merrill, John Calhoun. A Handbook of the Foreigg Press. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1939. The Elite Press. New York: Pittman, l968. , et al. The Foreign Press: A Survey of the World's Journalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970. Mickiewicz, Ellen. "Policy Applications of Public Opinion Research in the Soviet Union." P09, 26 (Winter l972-l973), pp. 566- 578. . Handbook of Soviet Social Science Data. New York: The Free Press, l973. Mishurisa, A. L. Pechat i Stroitelstvo Kommunista Podrod. Moscow, 1969. Paramahamsa, V. R. K. The Impact of Communications on Rural Development. Paris: UNESCO, 1969. Partiinaya Zhizn. "Rabota C Pismami Trudyashikhsia-Vazhnoe Partinoe Delo." March 5, 1974, pp. 3-7. Pechat v SSSR. l966, Izdatelstvo "Kniga." Moscow, 1967. Pronin, E. I. Pechat i Obshchestvennoe Mnenie. Moscow: Moscow, State University, l97l. Pye, Lucian. Aspects of Political Development. Boston: Little, Brown, l966. Roberts, Donald F., et al. "Letters in Mass Magazines as 'Outcroppings' of Public Concern." Journalism Wuarterly, 46 (Winter 1969). pp. 745-752. Rogers, Rosemarie. How RusSians Read Their Press: Patterns of Selection in Pravda and Izvestia. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, l968. . "The Soviet Audience Expects and Gets More From Its Media." Journalism Quarterly, 46 (Winter 1969), pp. 767-76, 783. 30] Rosenthal, Irwin. "Who Writes Letters-to-the-Editor?" Saturday Review, September l3, l969, p. ll5. Rummel, R. J. "Understanding Factor Analysis." Conflict Resolution, Vol XI, No. 4 (l967), pp. 444-80. Sayre, Jeanette. "Progress in Radio Fan Mail Analysis." 399, 3:272-8, l939. Schramm, Wilbur.' "The Nature of News." Journalism Quarterly, September l949, pp. 259-69. Schwartz, Victor. "Adaptation of Social Control Theory in the Soviet Union." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Wisconsin, l969. - Shaw, Donald L. and Bishop, Michael. "Editorial Function and Societal Stress." Journalism Quarterly, 49 (Spring l972), pp. 582-85. Shliapentokh, V. Literaturnaia Gazeta, May 7, 1969. Sotsiologia dlia Vsekh. Moscow, l970. . "Znakomstva I Svodby." Literaturnaya Gazeta, 24 (June l97l), p. 12. Siebert, Fred, et al. Four Theories of the Press. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963. Skilling, Gordon and Griffiths, Franklyn. Interest Groups in Soviet Politics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, l97 . Skvortsov, Yuri. "Trud Glazami Chitatelia." Zhurnalist, 7 (July l968), pp. 47-48. Smirnov, S. V. V. I. Lenin i Problemy Pechati. Leningrad, 1970. Smith, Hedrich. The Russians. New York: Quadrangel, The New York Times Book Co., 1976. Sommerland, E. The Press in Develgping Countries. Sydney: Sydney University Press, l966. Sussman, Leila A. "Voices of the People: A Study of Political Mass Mail." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1957. . "Mass Political Letter Writing in America." 399, 23 (Summer l959), pp. 203-l2. 302 Tarrant, William 0. "Who Writes Letters to the Editor." Journalism Quarterly, 34:50l-2, 1957. Vacin, Gary L. "A Study of Letter Writers." Journalism Quarterly, 42 (Summer 1965). pp. 464-65, 510. Van Gorkum, Pier-Henk. "Enkele Kritische Kant--Bij Het Negatieve Ordeel Ove--Briven-Schrijvers." Sociologische Gids, l4 (July-August l967), pp. 221-3l, from Sociological Abstracts, Vol. 18, No. 4 (l970), p. 534. Verba, Sidney, et al. "Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam." APSR, LXI (June 1967), pp. 317-33. Verkhovska a, A. Pismo v Redaktsi a i Chitateh. Moscow, 1972. Vinokurov, P. Pechat v Kapataliticheskii Stranah i v SSSR. Moscow, 1937. Webb, Eugene J., et al. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand, McNally, l966. Wessell, Nils H. "Newspaper Reader Surveys and the Effectiveness of the Soviet Press." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Columbia, l970. "Who Reads What in Izvestia." The Soviet Press, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring 1967). pp. 21-24. Zasurskii, Yasen. "Za Nauchnyi Podkhod K Problemam Zhurnalistiki." Vestnik Moskovskogg_Universiteta. Seriya XI, Zhurnalistiki, No. l, l966, pp. 3-6.