History Faculty Database
History
Arts & Sciences
Duke University

 HOME > Arts & Sciences > History > Faculty    Search Help Login pdf version printable version 

Publications of Anna Krylova    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Books   
@book{fds241681,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {Soviet Women in Combat: A History of Violence on the Eastern
             Front (Cambridge University Press)},
   Year = {2010},
   Key = {fds241681}
}


%% Journal Articles   
@article{fds220279,
   Author = {A. Krylova},
   Title = {“Soviet Modernity: Stephen Kotkin and The Bolshevik
             Predicament”},
   Journal = {Contemporary European History},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {May},
   Key = {fds220279}
}

@article{fds220278,
   Author = {A. Krylova},
   Title = {“Soviet Modernity: Stephen Kotkin and The Bolshevik
             Predicament"},
   Journal = {Contemporary European History},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {May},
   Key = {fds220278}
}


%% Papers Published   
@article{fds327587,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {Imagining socialism in the soviet century},
   Journal = {Social History},
   Volume = {42},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {315-341},
   Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2017.1327640},
   Abstract = {© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
             Group. Much of the current conversation about social
             justice, economic responsibility and individual
             self-realization is informed by an explicit or implicit
             comparison between capitalist and socialist modernities. The
             Soviet Union’s variety of socialism understandably serves
             as a critical master referent in this conversation. In this
             regard, a dominant historical narrative that ties the
             history of Soviet socialism to the Bolshevik origins imposes
             serious limitation to available depictions of socialism and
             histories of the twentieth century. This article turns the
             Bolshevik fundamentals assigned to the Soviet project into a
             problem of historical analysis and argues that the Soviet
             experience has more than one normative vision of socialism
             to offer. The goal is to foreground the divergence of
             normative conceptions of the socialist society and
             individual by historicizing the two principal and presently
             closely identified ideological-educational undertakings:
             those of the New Man and the ‘New Soviet Person’. By
             tracing the histories of the two projects, the article shows
             how the collectivist ethos of the Bolshevism of the
             1910–1920s that rejected the ontological differentiation
             between the individual and his or her social milieu failed
             to retain its ideological, institutional, and cultural
             currency even during the 1930s, not to mention throughout
             the Soviet period.},
   Doi = {10.1080/03071022.2017.1327640},
   Key = {fds327587}
}

@article{fds318226,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {Gender binary and the limits of poststructuralist
             method},
   Journal = {Gender & History},
   Volume = {28},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {307-323},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0424.12209},
   Abstract = {© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
             OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. In
             contemporary gender history, the story about the making of
             the gender category is inseparable from the concept of
             ‘gender binary’. It at once signifies a research agenda
             and constitutes a persistent problem pervading feminist
             analysis itself. On the one hand, it points to the massive
             historical record of persistent inequality between the
             sexes. On the other hand, the concept of ‘gender binary’
             undergirds gender history’s analytics, which empowers
             historians to pursue, expose and deconstruct the binary
             organisation of gendered – woman/man – identities as
             well as social relations and discursive formations that
             produce them. In both capacities, the concept carries a rich
             repertoire of connotations, which informs and influences the
             gender category: those of radical distinction, opposition,
             mutually exclusive and exhaustive differentiation,
             hierarchy, domination, oppression – in all their myriad
             historical forms. As a result, it captures the entanglement
             of gender – in theory, an open-ended category – in
             binary, that is, negatively and positively determined
             connotations of feminine and masculine and, consequently, in
             a particular, historical form of heterosexual subjectivity,
             the one structured like a binary system. The entanglement of
             gender history’s foundational category – gender – in
             the binary systems of assigning difference has had many
             critics. What has been left unexamined however and what
             gives this article its focus is the poverty of gender as a
             binary device to analyse those gendered identities that
             constitute heterosexual relations but do not fit the binary
             matrix. The goal in this article is to enable the conditions
             for the continuous development – not abandonment – of
             the gender category and our theoretical framework. To do
             that, I explore how the gender category became a binary
             category, tightly identified with connotations of asymmetry
             and hierarchy, by undertaking a deconstructive rereading of
             a foundational work by one of the discipline’s most
             influential poststructuralist theorists – Joan Scott. I
             conclude by arguing that in order to address the problem of
             gendered, heterosexual identities that do not fit the binary
             matrix we need to revisit the concept of dichotomy and
             differentiate it from binary connotations of difference
             found in heteronormative gender systems.},
   Doi = {10.1111/1468-0424.12209},
   Key = {fds318226}
}

@article{fds325842,
   Author = {Goswami, M and Hecht, G and Khalid, A and Krylova, A and Thompson, EF and Zatlin, JR and Zimmerman, A},
   Title = {History after the end of history: Reconceptualizing the
             twentieth century},
   Journal = {American Historical Review},
   Volume = {121},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {1567-1607},
   Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ahr/121.5.1567},
   Doi = {10.1093/ahr/121.5.1567},
   Key = {fds325842}
}

@article{fds335513,
   Author = {Krylova, A and Osokina, E},
   Title = {Introduction: The Economic Turn and Modern Russian
             History},
   Journal = {The Soviet and Post Soviet Review},
   Volume = {43},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {265-270},
   Publisher = {BRILL},
   Year = {2016},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18763324-04303002},
   Doi = {10.1163/18763324-04303002},
   Key = {fds335513}
}

@article{fds318227,
   Title = {The Economic Turn and Modern Russian History},
   Journal = {The Soviet and Post Soviet Review},
   Volume = {43},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {265-270},
   Publisher = {BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS},
   Editor = {Krylova, A and Osokina, E},
   Year = {2016},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18763324-04303002},
   Doi = {10.1163/18763324-04303002},
   Key = {fds318227}
}

@article{fds241680,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {Soviet Modernity: Stephen Kotkin and The Bolshevik
             Predicament},
   Journal = {Contemporary European History},
   Volume = {23},
   Pages = {167-192},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {May},
   Key = {fds241680}
}

@article{fds241679,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {“Neither Erased nor Remembered: Soviet “Women
             Combatants” and Cultural Strategies of Forgetting In
             Soviet Russia, 1940s-1980s"},
   Pages = {83-101},
   Booktitle = {Histories of the Aftermath: The European Postwar in
             Comparative Perspective},
   Publisher = {Berghahn Books},
   Editor = {Biess, F and Moeller, RG},
   Year = {2010},
   Key = {fds241679}
}

@article{fds241678,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {Identity, Agency, and the First Soviet Generation},
   Pages = {101-121},
   Booktitle = {Generations in 20th Century Europe},
   Publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
   Editor = {Lovell, S},
   Year = {2007},
   Key = {fds241678}
}

@article{fds241683,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {Stalinist identity from the viewpoint of gender: Rearing a
             generation of professionally violent women-fighters in 1930s
             stalinist Russia},
   Journal = {Gender & History},
   Volume = {16},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {626-653},
   Publisher = {WILEY},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://www.duke.edu/},
   Abstract = {Over the course of the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945, over
             800,000 Soviet women volunteered to the front and served in
             the field army. Among them were thousands of snipers,
             riflewomen, machine-gunners and mortar women. Thousands of
             women were trained to serve as commanders and commissars of
             rifle, machine-gun and mortar subdivisions. Women also
             mastered fighter planes, dive bombers and night bombers as
             well as light and heavy tanks. I pursue three questions in
             the article: how did this women's entitlement to fighting
             become thinkable in the first place, acceptable in the
             second, and thirdly, realisable in Soviet society? I argue
             that the conceivability of women's compatibility with
             combat, war and violence was a product of the radical
             undoing of traditional gender differences that Stalinist
             society underwent in the 1930s. By the late 1930s, combat
             duty in wartime became an acknowledged option for women in
             Stalinist political culture. The construction of alternative
             gender personalities enjoyed both public articulation in
             press and military expert approval. The alternative
             femininity encompassed and redefined the traditionally
             incompatible qualities: maternal love and military violence,
             feminine charm. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
             2004.},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.0953-5233.2004.00359.x},
   Key = {fds241683}
}

@article{fds241677,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {’Dancing on the Graves of the Dead’ or Building a World
             War II Memorial in Post-Soviet Russia},
   Pages = {83-102},
   Booktitle = {Memory and The Impact of Political Transformation in Public
             Space},
   Publisher = {Duke University Press},
   Editor = {Walkowitz, DJ and Knauer, LM},
   Year = {2004},
   Key = {fds241677}
}

@article{fds241684,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {Beyond the Spontaneity-Consciousness Paradigm: “Class
             Instinct” as a Promising Category of Historical
             Analysis},
   Journal = {Slavic Review},
   Volume = {62},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {1-23},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {Spring},
   ISSN = {0037-6779},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000181413900001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Abstract = {<jats:p>Anna Krylova questions whether the
             spontaneity-consciousness paradigm, the standard
             interpretive approach toward Bolshevik thought in the field
             of Soviet studies, offers an exhaustive account of Bolshevik
             discourse. To do that she examines the centrality of V I.
             Lenin's <jats:italic>What Is to Be Done?</jats:italic>
             (1902) in Bolshevik thought and points to the 1905
             revolution as the formative event in the Bolshevik
             conception of the worker. Krylova introduces an overlooked
             Bolshevik notion of “class instinct”
             <jats:italic>(klassovyiinstinkt, klassovoe
             chut'ie)</jats:italic> and argues that the notion of
             “class instinct” centrally informed the Bolshevik vision
             of the worker, structuring her article as a dialogue between
             scholars of Soviet history and their historical subjects. In
             the conclusion, she suggests the consequences that such a
             broadened notion of the Bolshevik conception of proletarian
             identity—beyond the spontaneity-consciousness
             paradigm—has for interpretations of Bolshevik and
             Stalinist culture. In “A Paradigm Lost?” his response to
             Krylova's essay, Reginald E. Zelnik welcomes Krylova's
             “class instinct” thesis as a fresh enrichment of and
             supplement to the spontaneity-consciousness paradigm, but,
             he argues, if we place this language in its early historical
             context, we cannot avoid the conclusion that with or without
             the introduction of “instinct,” Lenin and the Bolsheviks
             still had to face the same kind of contradictions in their
             conceptualization of the role of workers in the
             revolutionary movement. The revolutionary value of
             particular consciousness or particular instinct still had to
             be judged in accordance with an external point of reference,
             the nature of which remained and remains elusive. Igal
             Halfin, in his response, “Between Instinct and Mind: The
             Bolshevik View of the Proletarian Self,” argues that the
             Bolshevik notion of the self indeed deserves careful
             scrutiny. Focusing on how the official Soviet language
             characterized the interaction between workers’ bodies and
             workers’ souls, Halfin argues that the synthesis of the
             affective and the cerebral was key to this construction of
             the New Man in the 1920s and 1930s.</jats:p>},
   Doi = {10.2307/3090463},
   Key = {fds241684}
}

@article{fds241675,
   Author = {Kylova, A},
   Title = {In Their Own Words? Autobiographies of Women Writers,
             1930-1946},
   Pages = {243-276},
   Booktitle = {A History of Women's Writing in Russia},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
   Editor = {Barker, A and Gheith, J},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds241675}
}

@article{fds241686,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {’Healers of Wounded Souls’: The Crisis of Private Life
             in Soviet Literature and Society, 1944-46},
   Journal = {Journal of Modern History},
   Volume = {73},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {307-331},
   Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
   Year = {2001},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0022-2801},
   url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000169240900003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
   Doi = {10.1086/321026},
   Key = {fds241686}
}

@article{fds241674,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {’Ved ne mozhesh’ ty vechno zhit’ moeii zhizniiu:’
             Lichnow I lichnost’ v predvoennoi sovetskoi literature I
             obshchestve},
   Booktitle = {Sotsialisticheskii Kanon},
   Publisher = {St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt},
   Editor = {Giunter, H and Dobrenko, E},
   Year = {2000},
   Key = {fds241674}
}

@article{fds241685,
   Author = {Krylova, A},
   Title = {The Tenacious Liberal Subject in Soviet Studies},
   Journal = {Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian
             History},
   Volume = {1},
   Number = {Winter 2000},
   Pages = {119-146},
   Year = {2000},
   Month = {Winter},
   url = {http://www.duke.edu/},
   Key = {fds241685}
}

@article{fds241671,
   Author = {Kylova, A},
   Title = {Teaching Cultural History: Russian and Soviet Literature as
             Historical Documents},
   Booktitle = {Urgent Problems of Teaching Russian History in Russian and
             American Universities},
   Publisher = {Samara State University},
   Editor = {Kabytov, P},
   Year = {1998},
   Key = {fds241671}
}

@article{fds241672,
   Author = {Kylova, A},
   Title = {Revoliutsionnyi diskurs},
   Booktitle = {Oktiabr’ 1917: Smysl I znachenie},
   Publisher = {Moscow: Gorbachev-Fond},
   Editor = {Loginov, VT},
   Year = {1998},
   Key = {fds241672}
}

@article{fds241673,
   Author = {Kylova, A},
   Title = {’Saying Lenin and Meaning Party’: Subversion and
             Laughter in Late Soviet Society},
   Pages = {243-265},
   Booktitle = {Consuming Russia: Popular Culture, Sex and Society since
             Gorbachev},
   Publisher = {Duke University Press},
   Editor = {Barker, A and Ramet, S},
   Year = {1998},
   Key = {fds241673}
}


Duke University * Arts & Sciences * History * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Reload * Login