Returns Something To Its Central Place In Soviet History

Question

A book review for the book "The Soviet Tragedy" by Martin Malia reads:

The Soviet Tragedy is an essential coda to the literature of Soviet studies...Insofar as [he] returns the power of ideology to its central place in Soviet history, Malia has made an enormous contribution. He has written the history of a utopian illusion and the tragic consequences it had for the people of the Soviet Union and the world.

I understand (sort of!?) the phrase "a central place in Soviet history". But I don't quite get how the author Malia proactively "returns the power of ideology to its central place in Soviet history," since Malia is not a participant of that Soviet history, but a mere author. If someone, lets say John Doe, did something awesome in the past in America, then the sentence:

John Doe has a central place in American history.

makes sense to me.

Answer 1

History is a story

History is a story. Historians emphasize certain facts, events, and themes. People who listen to or read history do so either for entertainment, or for general knowledge, or to gather lessons that can help them make decisions in the future.

The original poster is under the impression that the English word "history" primarily refers to "all of the important things that happened in the past". But according to several dictionaries, this is not the primary definition of history. For example, the Collins Dictionary lists "past events, [especially] when considered as an aggregate" as the fourth definition.

This is because too many events have happened in the past for anyone studying history to know about all of them. Collins' second and third definitions talk about how we deal with this. Definition 3 is "the discipline of recording and interpreting past events involving human beings". Definition 2 is "all that is preserved or remembered of the past, esp in written form".

When the historians have interpreted and condensed history enough that it can be told as a story, we reach Collins' first definition: "a record or account, often chronological in approach, of past events, developments, et cetera".

How the quote was meant to be interpreted

The quoted passage was meant to be read by well-educated English speakers. These readers understand that the primary meaning of "history" has to do with the facts and themes that are emphasized by people who study history. They understand that the original quote means "Insofar as [he] returns the power of ideology to its central place [as a central theme] in [the study of] Soviet history".

Because this meaning will be understood by the intended audience, the quote is well-written. But if you think of "history (everything that happened)" and "the study of history (the facts and themes that historians think are important)" as two different things, then feel free to annotate the quote to show that it is talking about the second meaning.

Differences of opinion

A common English saying is that "History is written by the winners". The biases of historians profoundly affect what we read in our history books. Historians also suffer from fads. Usually key information is either secret, or has been lost or overlooked.

By the way, if you have done any study of history at all, you have your own interpretations of history. For purposes of this discussion, you are also a historian. You might be more or less knowledgeable than some professional historians about various topics. You might be more or less able to convince someone about the truth or or importance of something that happened in the past. But if you think something is right or important, you are certainly entitled to an opinion. Your opinion might be more or less correct than that of a professional historian.

Irony

Ideology did have a central role in the Soviet Union. The Bolshevik party was founded to develop and promote a particular ideology. After it seized control of the remnants of the Russian Empire during World War I, it structured the government, military, agriculture, and industry so that its ideology would be considered in every significant decision. For example:

• There was a parallel hierarchy of "political officers" in the military.
• The chief ideologist was always one of the highest ranking members of the Politburo.
• Leninism and Stalinism were permeated by successful attempts to force all politicians and managers to parrot the official party line -- even when the party line changed.
• The contrast between the ideology and reality was always a constant theme in people's daily lives.

When the contrast between ideology and reality was too stark, Soviet historians were expected to side with ideology. For that matter, when the contrast between current ideology and past ideology was too stark, Soviet historians were expected to side with current ideology. This made histories written by Soviet historians unreliable.

Answer 2

I am sorry I am not a native speaker, but this is to me explainable.

Whoever she is, the author or the reader,

..Insofar as [he] returns the power of ideology to its central place in Soviet history, Malia has made an enormous contribution.

She is saying he ( whom I do not know so I assume someone else, not Malia ). And here the word place wouldn't mean a certain spatial point, but rather a synonym with role or performance.

Since she writes

He has written the history of a utopian illusion and the tragic consequences it had for the people of the Soviet Union and the world.

From which is implied is the HE is stressing the role of the ideology of ( the socialism ) in the history of Soviet Union that caused the tragic consequence and the utopian illusion excited by it.

In shorter terms, she is simply saying the HE is telling the story of the power of the socialism that caused many tragic consequences in Soviet.