CC BY
0
ВЕСТНИК ПЕРМСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА
2023 История Выпуск 4(63)
УДК 94 (47+57)"1953/1959"
doi 10.17072/2219-3111-2023-4-61-73
Ссылка для цитирования: Golovlev A. I. Culture and State: Creation of Ministries of Culture in the USSR and France from a Comparative Perspective, 1953-1959 // Вестник Пермского университета. История. 2023. № 4(63). С. 61-73.
CULTURE AND THE STATE: CREATION OF MINISTRIES OF CULTURE IN THE USSR AND FRANCE FROM A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE, 1953-1959
A. I. Golovlev
School of Historical Sciences, National Research University "Higher School of Economics",
Staraya Basmannaya str., 21/4, 127051, Moscow, Russia
agolovlev@hse.ru
SPIN: 5173-8763
ResearcherID: H-2316-2015
Scopus Author ID: 57194392537
In this essay, the creation and organisational frameworks of the ministries of culture in the USSR and France are compared. Established in the 1950s, they represent an important departure from most then-contemporary European practices, on the one hand reflecting the acceptance of a particular role of the state in cultural governance, yet on the other lacking a clearly defined area of competence, policy strategy, and power resources. In France, the creation of a separate ministry of culture resulted in no small part from a desire to give a ministerial rank to Andre Malraux and make a reverence to French culture as part of national identity. Conversely, the Soviet regime sought to assert culture's symbolic independence from propaganda, while equally upgrading the status of culture within the state apparatus. In both cases, the ministry of culture was politically weak, and in the Soviet Union an appointment to a minister of culture was akin to a demotion compared to top party positions. Malraux found himself without a detailed plan and significant economic and personnel resources, just as the Soviet ministry was relatively underfunded and subordinated to the CPSU Central Committee's cultural department. While the Soviet and French decisions to raise cultural management to a ministerial level occurred independently from each other, they reveal deep-seated parallels in the respective societies' perceptions of culture, governance, and the value of cultural goods and habitus that prevailed over a clearly defined policy of cultural management.
Key words: cultural governance, cultural management, cultural history, Soviet thaw, Gaullism, Ministry of Culture.
"The Soviet Union, within the remit of culture, has one clear priority: the invention of state cultural policy" [Khestanov, 2013, p. 35]. Indeed, the USSR can claim precedence in consistently pursuing such a policy via the Committee on Arts Affairs (Komitet po delam iskusstv) between 1936 and 1953 and a Ministry of Culture afterwards. This institution was among the first cohort of ministries established during the 1953 reform that abolished people's commissariats in the wake of Stalin's death. In 1959, only six years later, General Charles de Gaulle, President of the newly established Fifth Republic, suggested setting up a Ministry of Culture in France, pioneering the idea of cultural governance on the ministerial level amongst capitalist western democracies.
Inventing these two ministries was, naturally, not equal to a complete invention of cultural policies as such, and needs to be placed more precisely within the cultural history, and the history of cultural governance, of France, Russia/Soviet Union, as well as within a broader context. From Ancient Egypt and Assyria to New Deal America, arts and culture have played a crucial role within state-defined politics, even though a specific cultural policy may have been secondary to political or religious goals. It is the coherence in state-defined cultural policy [Urfalino, 1996, p. 360] that was novel in the 20th century, and a departure from "iskusstva" and Beaux-Arts ("Fine Arts"), two narrower concepts.
One might reasonably ask, however, whether there is analytical value in comparing those two acts of ministerial creation, beyond a chronological coincidence. In fact, this question is a historio-graphical lacuna. Much of the existing literature that will be explored in this essay is concerned with
© Golovlev A. I., 2023
single national cases - notably Rouslan Khestanov, Nataliia Beloshapka, Mikhail Gershzon for the USSR; Pascal Ory, Jean-Michel Dijan, Philippe Poirrier, Philippe Urfalino, among others, for France, where a vivid public debate has existed since the publication of Marc Fumaroli's Etat culturel: une religion moderne in 1991. A more organizationally centred history (Geneviève Poujol, Michel Dardy), harking back to the incentives of Jeanne Laurent and André Malraux, has been concentrated on the Committee on History of the French Cultural Ministry, which, naturally, has been less sceptical of the institution, yet in its methods comes closer to Russian historians such as Gershzon, who painstakingly worked through the vast archival heritage of the Soviet Ministry of Culture. While cultural governance has been typically studied either between totalitarian regimes1, or within a "European" (more or less, EU/EEC) framework [Sassatelli, 2007, among others], I will suggest a different perspective. Borrowing Jeremy Ahearne's (and, indirectly, Philippe Urfalino's) term, I see the late 1950s as an interesting point of convergence on 'explicit' cultural policies [Ahearne, 2009, p. 141, 143], when the Soviet Union and France became the forerunners of such a ministerial policy.
In addressing this issue, I will attempt to answer several questions. Why did a major Communist and a major Western European power move to create a cultural ministry in the first place? How were they structured and financed? What was their relative power position? What can these reforms reveal about Soviet and French understandings of culture, as well as of "the" state's relation to, and governance/management of, culture? Can a greater continental European convergence - or still a prevalence of East-West divergence - be suggested?
A proviso is needed here: did they know of each other? A Soviet official once suggested that the French had studied the Soviet mode while devising "their" ministry [Gershzon, 2010, p. 274], which I could not - at least yet - corroborate with French sources. The Soviets did look into the organigramme of the French Ministry of Culture - but only in 1990 [Struktura..., 1990] when a full-scale reform at home was being discussed. Hence, I will not (yet) posit the existence of any explicitly transnational history. Future research, however, may disprove this study's purely comparative, and (almost) not transnational, focus.
Kultura/Culture and Cultural Governance: A Juxtaposition
Raymond William's famous, and often-cited, characterization of culture as "one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language" fits both the Russian ("Kultura") and the French (culture and civilisation) usages. Williams specifically mentions Ministries of Culture in distinguishing three meanings of this word:
"(i) the independent and abstract noun which describes a general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development, from C18; (ii) the independent noun, whether used generally or specifically, which indicates a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period, a group, or humanity in general, from Herder and Klemm. But we have also to recognize (iii) the independent and abstract noun which describes the works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity. This seems often now the most widespread use: culture is music, literature, painting and sculpture, theatre and film. A Ministry of Culture refers to these specific activities, sometimes with the addition of philosophy, scholarship, history" [Williams, 1976, p. 26-27].
Bolshevik leaders, including Lenin himself, ascribed a variety of meanings to the word "culture", which mostly referred to a "cultured" way of life (and work) which the Soviet state was expected to foster [Khestanov, 2014]. "Culture" gained currency in the NEP period, as the party - and the state - committed to raising the "cultural level" within Soviet society [Kurennoi, 2013, p. 21-22]. Stalinist subjugation of culture to the party-state power, however, was less of a principal departure from the essentially Leninist concept of party supremacy than a practical realisation of a totalitarian mode of cultural governance, and the creation of an imperial Soviet cultural identity [Artizov, 1999; Dobrenko, 2007; Dobrenko, 2020]. Ultimately, culture united both ambition and down-to-earth considerations and was used in ways to stress the Bolshevik claim to power and symbolic domination.
What, then, of managing culture? Archival evidence does not suggest that plans for setting up a cultural ministry existed before 1953 [Gershzon, 2021, p. 98], even if Anatoly Lunacharsky had not concealed his ambitions to personally direct culture in the 1920s [cf. Fitzpatrick, 2002]. The Commit-
tee on Arts Affairs, called into being in 1936, functioned as an instrument of instilling Socialist Realist obedience rather than a political actor of its own [Golovkina, 2008], and culture was not fully concentrated under its command (VOKS, for example, being nominally independent). As Mikhail Gershzon noted, 'managing cultural processes was dispersed among various party-state organs' [Gershzon, 2010, p. 274]. While the party was to direct culture, existing state organs would actually govern it [Khestanov, 2013, p. 44].
Did that change in 1953? Khrushchev claimed that culture was opposed to propaganda: "[t]he establishment of the Ministry of Culture ... was the act of culture's emancipation from ideology" [Khestanov, 2013, p. 49; Khestanov, 2014, p. 137]. If we accept Khrushchev's rhetoric of separating culture from politics, then the Soviet Ministry of Culture was an ideational opposite of the Stalinist model. However, the maintenance of party control leads us to think that Khrushchev was somewhat disingenuous in his distinction between culture and politics, and we will return to this while discussing the Cultural Ministry's hierarchical position.
Was Soviet thinking totalitarian? This is an inherently typological, and transnational, question that must bring up two other ideal-types of totalitarian regimes: Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. The Italian Ministero della Cultura Popolare existing in 1937-1944 appears to be, on the surface, closer to the Soviet model. Its origins lay in the press and propaganda services that were morphed into a broader concept of 'popular culture' aiming to bring the 'fascist revolution' to the masses. Historians have tended to be dismissive of culture's autonomy, political and administrative, within this "popular" field: Min-culpop has been mostly viewed as an Italian pendant to the German Imperial Propaganda Ministry -Reichsministerium für Propaganda und Volksaufklärung/RMVP [Cannistraro, 1970; Cannistraro, 1975; Novellino, 2016]. While comparing Soviet, Nazi, and Fascist cultural governance in the 1930s is a valid project, I would contend that the post-war Cultural Ministry of the USSR was different from the Italian and German models. Neither the Minculpop, nor the RMVP were dedicated exclusively to culture as understood by the Soviets in the 1950s (it was but one of their competences), and thus cannot be equated with the Soviet Minkul 't which wasn't a commanding height in the propaganda industry.
What would, conversely, French officials understand under the word culture? Broadly, the third meaning within Williams' definition would apply. Cultural governance by the state had started with royal patronage in the 16th and 17th centuries, via Napoleon Ill's "etatisation" of cultural oversight via the Maison de l'Empereur, to the experiences of the Third Republic, including a short-lived Ministry of the Arts in 1881, and, particularly, the Front Populaire which brought forward the idea of a 'democratisation' of culture, expressed notably by Jean Zay [Ory, 1994; Poirrier, 2000]. Yet the relationship between state and culture was not clearly defined, and the state's stewardship of beaux-arts, for which a directory existed in the education ministry, was often perceived as unacceptable [Dubois, 1999, p. 30-151]. Democratic and monarchical principles coexisted in ideas of state's and society's interactions with - and benevolent guidance of - culture (Ory, 1989; Ory, 2004). In a rather contradictory way, both Vichy and the Fourth Republic contributed to a further legitimation of the idea of state intervention in culture [Poirrier, 2000, p. 48-49]. However, French cultural policies before 1945 did not constitute a linear path to creating a ministry - which has been seen as a product of a particular political contingency in 1958-1959 [Négrier, 2017, p. 4-5].
Thus, both the French and the Soviet state brought considerable institutional, and ideational, luggage when the creation of ministries for culture was being decided upon. Firstly - the French more explicitly than the Soviets - they referred to "culture" as essentially high culture, and a high culture-oriented habitus, which had to be instilled among the general population. Culture became in both cases a politically charged word. Unlike the English-speaking countries (and Germany), the central state's preeminence in directing culture was not a foreign idea to Soviet and French contemporaries, resulting from a long prehistory of state involvement with culture in France, and an active role in preserving and shaping culture claimed by the Bolshevik party and the Soviet state.
Organisational Setup: Ministries in the Making
The Ministry of Culture of the USSR officially came into being on 15 March 1953. Its activities were regulated by the Law on Reconstitution of Ministries in the USSR (15 March 1953), Council
of Ministers Decree No 33 "On the Structure and Personnel of the Central Apparatus of the Ministry of Culture" passed on 28 March 1953, and a Regulation of the Ministry of Culture adopted on 20 June 1953 [Zakon o preobrazovanii 15.03.1953, Postanovlenie o strukture 28.03.1953, Postanovlenie ob utverzhdenii 20.06.1953, Gershzon, 2016]. Finally, in the 1977 Soviet Constitution, the Ministry of Culture was assigned the task of directing "cultural construction" (development) via union republic ministries or all-union cultural institutions [Beloshapka, 2012, p. 40].
When the ministries' bill was introduced in March 1953, Georgy Malenkov stated that the law would help reduce the bureaucratization of state organs and operationalise the decision-making process [Gershzon, 2010, p. 275]. The actual structure of the ministry spoke a different language. It contained: 10 general directories (Arts, Radio Information, Radio Broadcasting, Vocational Education, General Directory of Publishing Houses, Printing and Book Sales, Sovinformburo, General Directory of Cinema Development and Leasing, Construction Works, Productive Facilities, Sales (sbyta)); 7 directories (Directory for Cultural-Enlightenment Institutions, for Vocational Training Institutes, Leading Cadres, External Relations, Planning and Economy, Finances, Construction Works (kapital'nogo stroitel'stva)); a Central Accounting Office; 6 departments (First, Military Register, Expertise of Projects and Cost Estimates for Construction, Legal, Militarized Protection and Fire Brigade Units, Transport); and a separate Minister's apparatus (Inspectorate, Secretariat, Chancellery; Arbitrage; and Janitors). In addition, a PhD Examination Commission (Vysshaia attestatsionnaia komissia) and a State Inspection for Protection of Cultural and Historical Heritage were attached to the Ministry, and the All-Union Directory for Circus (Sovgostsirk) was subordinate to it (Gershzon, 2010, p. 279). The Ministry was governed by a College (Kollegiia) which assisted the minister and embodied the idea of collective decision-making [Gershzon, 2010, p. 283-284; Gershzon, 2018, p. 379-391; Gershzon, 2022]. Vice ministers soon took over much of the actual work. Locally, the Cultural Ministry oversaw, firstly, republican cultural ministries, and then cultural departments within regional, city, or local (raion) councils, down to a constantly expanding network of "houses of culture" (doma kul 'tury) and clubs on the ground.
This plethora of subdivisions reflects the composite, all-in-one character of the new, hastily set up "super-ministry" that later underwent a series of readjustments as a number of departments were detached from it during the 1950-1960s [Khestanov, 2013, p. 50; Gershzon, 2010; Gershzon, 2022, p. 20]. That happened, however, not according to a strategically designed plan, but rather as a reaction to the overburdening of the state bureaucracy with endless problems of minutely supervising culture, cultural institutions, and artists, with their varying interests and incessant lobbying. In cinema, ideological shifts (de-Stalinization) and the malokartin 'e (modest rates of production) served as a ground to attack the ministry's stewardship of cinema and the latter's detachment in 1963 into a State Committee under the Council of Ministers [Gershzon, 2010, p. 307-325; Gershzon, 2016; Gershzon, 2021, p. 100]2. The printing industry and book circulation soon followed suit. Separations continued, as internal and international tourism and foreign relations (where the Central Committee and the KGB rebuked the Ministry for wanting to concentrate control over cultural exchange in its hands [Gerszon, 2010, p. 381]) were definitively excluded from the Ministry's purview.
The Ministry of Culture did not rank highly in the party-state hierarchy. The first minister, Pan-teleimon K. Ponomarenko (a former First Secretary of Belarusian Communists, and the commander of Soviet partisans), was essentially demoted to this post by Khrushchev, whose relationship with Ponomarenko was notoriously bad. In 1954, Ponomarenko was appointed first secretary in Kazakhstan and replaced by Grigory F. Alexandrov, who started a de-Stalinization of cultural governance practices and replaced several senior officials [Gershzon, 2022, p. 20], but soon lost his position after a sex scandal [Ogryzko, 2019, p. 55-130]. The last "pre-Furtseva" minister, Nikolai A. Mikhailov, had more experience in cultural management and was expected to systematise the ministry's work [Gershzon, 2021, p. 99]. However, he could behave rudely towards artists, and was not generally respected [Gershzon, 2010, p. 290, 293; Ogryzko, 2019, p. 158-167] . An ambitious apparatchik would seek a better position than leading the Cultural Ministry.
What, then, of party control? The "state" Ministry of Culture was thought of, and promoted, as separate from the CPSU apparatus and thus "a-political" - fitting into Khrushchev's discourse3. In addi-
tion, its creation fell into the period of "first thaw" when cultural regulation was not clearly defined and rather fluid [Gershzon, 2022; Gershzon, 2018, p. 45-50, 172-173]. Liberalism would be in the air.
Yet this supposed liberalism was largely nominal. Historians are fairly unanimous in assigning the dominant role to the Cultural Department of the Communist Party's Central Committee [see Be-loshapka, 2009; Beloshapka, 2012; Gershzon, 2010; Gershzon, 2018; Gershzon, 2022]. The ministry essentially carried out orders from the Central Committee [Gershzon, 2021, p. 100]: the CPSU cultural department4 presided over the Ministry of Culture. Gershzon notes that only those initiatives of the Ministry of Culture that had been previously expressed, or in some way endorsed, by senior party leadership eventually went ahead [Gershzon, 2010, p. 386]. However, the union - and, concomitantly, the union republics - ministries overtook the technical work of cultural governance that was delegated to them by the party.
The French Ministry of Culture was set up in 1959 by the decree on 3 February 1959 establishing its creation, a decree appointing André Malraux adopted on 22 July 1959, and a decree regulating the structure of the Ministry, 24 July 1959 [Décret No. 59-212 03.02.1959, Décret 22.07.1959, Décret No. 59-889 24.07.1959; Poujol, 1991, p. 251-253]. Its broad objectives were stated as disseminating "the capital works of art" in France and abroad, while also contributing to the accessibility of culture to French citizens and the rayonnement of France - and the Francophonie - in the world [Beau-lieu/Dardy, 2002, p. 22-23]. Here, Philippe Poirrier sees a break with the narrower Beaux-Arts tradition [Poirrier, 2000, p. 73-74]. The 1959 organisation scheme of the ministry foresaw a Secretariat General, a General Directory of Arts and Letters, Directories for Archives and Architecture, a Directory of Sports, and a National Centre of Cinema [Beaulieu/Dardy, 2002, p. 28]. While the Soviets heaped up various subdivisions, France's Ministry of Culture started with almost no internal structural design at all. Its "function" and its administrative structure were to be created along the way, as even the most important general directories were slowly taking shape through 1960-1961 [Poirrier, 2000, p. 76, 81-82; Dubois, 1999, p. 226-234; Dubois, 2016, p. 84-85].
André Malraux, the charismatic new minister, wanted "to do for culture what Jules Ferry [had done] for education" [Cabanne, 1981, p. 50, 51]. His appointment to "a ministry for a man" [Poujol, 1991, p. 251] is usually attributed to de Gaulle [Dijan, 1996, p. 69-70; Poirrier, 2000, p. 70-71; Kosenko, 2008, p. 24] who wanted to keep Malraux in the cabinet, yet the President was less clear on what Malraux could (and should) be able to do. This has been seen as the main explanation why the new ministry came into being without any thought-through administrative structure [Poirrier, 2000, p. 89], and even motivated administrators met with conservative resistance from Education [Poujol, 1991]. Malraux was a contested figure5, and little did he attempt to assuage the spirits when, for example, he condemned the revolting students in 1968 or expected other central or local authorities or artists not to differ from his viewpoint too much [Rigaud, 1996, p. 271; Kosenko, 2008, p. 32-33]. Following Jean-Michel Dijan, Philippe Urfalino [Urfalino, 1997] saw Malraux's personal policies as an expression of the indissolubility of state and modernisation.
The democratisation pathos espoused by Malraux fitted into the Front Populaire tradition and the critique of the 'elitist' beaux-arts [Poirrier, 2013, p. 26; Urfalino, 1996, p. 359; Urfalino, 1997, p. 43, 46; Kosenko, 2008, p. 31]. Furthermore, the Ministry sought to modernise French culture (and French society), following the Gaullist ideas of the IV Plan [Poirrier, 2000, p. 78; Urfalino, 1997, p. 47] and a paternalist conception of state [Kosenko, 2008, p. 58, 86]. Another important aspect was decentralisation. Malraux saw Maisons de la Culture as a key project that would eventually put his action on the same foot as Jules Ferry's (opponents were more or less convinced) [Mossuz, 1970, p. 169-171; Wachtel, 1987, p. 13-14]. Yet decentralisation's successes in the first years of the new ministry were rather modest [Mozhaeva, 2011, p. 308; Kosenko, 2008, p. 27-28], and it was in the 1960-1970s that more stable form of cultural presence on the ground, Directions régionales des affaires culturelles (DRAC), took ground.
Another, potentially controversial, axis was the initial intersection of France's cultural and colonial politics (after all, Malraux traveled widely across the outre-mer), which, as Marie-Ange Rauch argued, was essential for rayonnement luggage and the personnel policies within the Cultural Ministry, which eagerly recruited fonctionnaires of the crumbling imperial administration [Rauch, 1998,
p. 51-53, 133-137]. As the Soviet Union did not have a formal colonial empire, it cannot be directly compared to France in this respect, while, understandably, a strongly centralised cultural policy would rather quickly border on cultural colonialism in a multiethnic Soviet state. Last but not least, in foreign cultural affairs, like in the USSR, the Foreign Ministry has been keen to keep the Ministry of Culture at a distance from the actual decision-making [Poirrier, 2000, p. 88].
While the French cultural ministry displayed more internal political autonomy compared to its Soviet counterpart, it was hardly one of the more powerful departments in the French government. They both looked back at a history of state involvement with culture. In the short term, the Soviet and French ministries were brought into existence with fairly lapidary decrees without much previous planning, yet the political conjuncture in Moscow and Paris was different. The party-state sought to reform and optimise its control over Soviet culture; de Gaulle wanted to create a suitable position for Malraux, from which a new ministry began to grow.
Art for Art vs. Money for Art: On the Tightness of State Purses
When Ministries of Culture were being designed, both Soviet and French authorities had rather vague ideas about their budgetary requirements. It must be said beforehand that estimating the exact value of a subvention meets with important methodological difficulties (in the planned economy, access to goods was not regulated by money alone, and prices were fixed). In addition, Soviet budgets did not feature a clearly defined "culture" category that could be assigned to the Cultural Ministry alone (republican ministries, such as that of the RSFSR, were supported, correspondingly, by republican budgets, where similar problems persist). While just over a quarter (28-29 %) of Soviet expenditure was dedicated to "cultural issues", these included education (prosveshchenie), sports, leisure, and, finally, "social and cultural activities" (which were not necessarily covered by the Ministry). Only subventions to the most important theatres and musical institutions were singled out [Bakanov, 2021, p. 313-314, Otchiot ob ispolnenii 1953, Gosudarstvennyi biudzhet SSSR 1946-1950, 1951-1955; O gosudarstvennom biudzhete SSSR na 1956 g.]. Valentina Muzychuk calculated that culture was continuously allotted roughly one percent of the Soviet budget [Muzychuk, 2007, p. 248] - being financed "on a residual basis" (po ostatochnomu printsipu). The Cultural Ministry wasn't a wealthy and powerful office of state.
In France, likewise, the government was from the start not generous with the new ministry [Ri-oux, 1990, p. 115; Kosenko, 2008, p. 28]. Back in 1954, the Beaux-Arts section of the education ministry had obtained just 0.10 % of the national budget [Poirrier, 2000, p. 56]. The Ministry of Culture had a correspondingly larger, yet decisively modest share in the national budget. It was calculated at 0.38 % in 1960, and then slowly rose to, but only twice reached, the 1 % benchmark - notably with a doubling in the early 1980s under Jack Lang [Budget de l'Etat, 2013, p. 392-396; Dijan, 1996, p. 106; Poirrier, 2000, p. 161; Poirrier, 2013, p. 26]. Before Jack Lang, Malraux, with his political leverage, appears to have been the most successful minister in raising budgets with the national government [Négrier, 2017, p. 8-9; Foulon, 2019].
Neither the Soviet, nor the French ministry had a complete monopoly on managing finances dedicated to culture; in the French case, for instance, never a majority of government subventions related to the arts. Like their Soviet colleagues, cultural fonctionnaires found themselves in a ministry that was (correctly) perceived as significantly underfunded (Kotolikova, 2017, p. 47). If the decision to set up a separate ministry of culture was a one-way road (with a short secretariat general diversion later in France), extracting large sums from the state has been an arduous task ever since the 1950s6. And this points to another structural weakness of both the Soviet and French ministry within their political systems.
Internally, expenditure was set to grow. Both Ministries of Culture have been overseeing "public goods" and a number of institutions whose income has been diminishing. From the start, the Ministry of Culture in France dedicated more than a third of its budget to the 'big' Parisian institutions, such as the opera and museums [Kosenko, 2008, p. 156]. Opera (and drama) theatres, subject to the Baumol law, are an exemplar of this tendency: if in the 19th century opera was a commercial business, the second half of the 20th century sees both a decrease in contemporary opera production (paired with a diminished relevance of opera for cultural production, its elitisation and museification), and an increase
in financial subsidies. Simultaneously, cultural lobbyists, artists, and societies at large expected the level of state support to increase. Cultural ministers in both countries were not seldom forced to transmit the state's austerity policy down to artists: a pattern that has been reproduced in other countries where such ministries have been established.
Conclusion: "Cultural State" or "Residual Basis"?
Cultural ministers, and their ministries, were not among the first cohorts of political elites in either country, nor did they have much say in broader political issues. A position in the Ministry of Culture would hardly be a first choice for a purely careerist fonctionnaire or apparatchik. For artists, however, the ministries became important interlocutors, commanding financial and capital means that were distributed among institutions and individual "cultural workers". After all, both the USSR and France used culture in their prestige offensives at home and, particularly, abroad, and 'culture' had too much of a positive tinge in Russo- and Francophone political cultures to be discarded once a top-level government division had already been created.
I therefore see the creating of Cultural Ministries as a representative milestone within the intellectual history of cultural governance in the USSR and France. Cultural prestige has tended to hold sway over educated circles in both countries - both among officials and, I would argue, historians. As Sergei Kosenko wrote, "if in the power of its nuclear arsenal France lags behind Russia ... in cultural and spiritual influence in Europe and the world, France is nonetheless far superior to Russia" [Kosenko, 2007, p. 87]. Culture has been a desirable and prestigious good, and the cultural industry has had to be protected from commercial "vandalism". "Communism" versus "gaullism" (or, arguably, "democracy") would itself hold less explanatory power than these broad convergences that are better explained by Pierre Bourdieu than Karl Marx (or Karl Popper). This notional convergence can be singled out as the most important common trait in these two cases7.
While both cultural ministries were relatively poor, and commanded little independent leverage in attracting resources, they could benefit from the perceived need to accumulate prestige capital both domestically and abroad, which could help raise funds - specifically when higher-ranking authorities felt they could themselves benefit from a "cultural offensive". Far from being loci of power, cultural ministries remained objects, rather than subjects, of state policies and have tended to act within the narrowly circumscribed limits of their nominally assigned competences that have never covered the entirety of cultural creation, dissemination, and consumption. This weakness was congenital, and to overcome it would require another transformation, its scope equal to those of 1953 and 1959.
Notes
1 A workshop dedicated to the cultural history of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy was organized by Humboldt University in 2019, shortly before the pandemic. See: https://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/fmi/bereiche/ab_janz/ Termine/Workshop-programme_Comparing-the-cultural-history-of-Fascist-Italy-and-Nazi-Germany.pdf.
2 State Committees were another fashion in Soviet governance under Khrushchev.
3 Interestingly, the "depoliticization" Zeitgeist did not immediately register with all "cultural workers". In early 1953, Alexander Fadeev petitioned the Central Committee to retain full party control, instead of creating a state institution, over Soviet culture (Letter to Malenkov and Khrushchev on 14 September 1953, Apparat TsKKPSS i kul'tura 1953-1957, 153-156). He was subsequently rebuked by party officials (M.D. Iakovlev / Culture and Science Department of the Central Committee to Khrushchev, 28 September 1953, Apparat TsK KPSS i kul'tura 1953-1957, 187-188).
4 Between 1953-1955: science and culture, since 1955 - separate culture department, 1956-1965 divided by union republics, since 1965 - a unified culture department (see: Kiselev et al. 2004, 7).
5 Malraux's personality that dominated the Cultural Ministry's first decade stands in a stark contrast with the -almost visibly unhappy - Soviet apparatchiks sent to Mincult, who, before Ekaterina Furtseva (and with a possible exception of Grigory Alexandrov) displayed little individual profile in their job (and her successor, Piotr Demichev, was commonly described as a phony careerist, see Shilov, 2021).
6 The history of the Russian SFSR's All-Russian Society for Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIK) is a notorious, and instructive, example of how initiatives from below that did not promise easy political capital, unlike a Bolshoi tour abroad, met with very lukewarm support from party-state apparatchiks.
7 Conversely, though, the Russian and French historiographies of cultural ministries' history have developed along rather different lines of inquiry: institutional history (Gershzon, Beloshapka), political history (Khestanov,
Kurennoi, partly Beloshapka), history of discourse (Khestanov) versus the French penchant towards intellectual and political history (notably Ory, Poirrier) next to economic and organizational aspects (e.g. Négrier, Poirrier among others); the Cultural Ministry itself produces accounts that are closer to the "Russian" tradition (e.g. Pou-jol). Of note is recent Russian research on French cultural policies (Kosenko).
Sources
Afiani, V.Iu. (ed.) (2005), Apparat TsKKPSS i kul'tura. 1953-1957 [CC CPSU Apparatus and Culture, 1953-1957], Rosspen, Moscow, Russia, 805 p.
Budget de l'Etat. Fiches Culture - fiche 29 (2011), available at: https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Media/ Thematiques/Etudes-et-statistiques/Files/Publications/Questions-de-culture/Culture-medias-2030_variables/Culture-medias-2030_fiche-29_Budget-de-l-etat (accessed: 12.12.2023). "Décret du 3 février 1959 (attributions du ministre de la Culture)", JORF, 04.02.1959, p. 1556. "Décret du 22 juillet 1959 relatif à la composition du Gouvernement", JORF, 26.07.1959, p. 7411. "Décret n° 59-889 du 24 juillet 1959 portant organisation du ministère chargé des affaires culturelles", JORF, 26.07.1959, p. 7413.
Gosudarstvennyi biudzhet SSSR za chetvertuyu i pyatuyu pyatiletki: 1946-1950, 1951-1955. Statistich-eskiy sbornik [State Budget of the USSR for the 4th and 5th Five-Year Plan. A Statistical Compendium] (1957), Gosfinizdat, Leningrad, USSR, 139 p.
Otchyot ob ispolnenii gosudarstvennogo byudzheta SSSR za 1953 g. [Report on the Execution of the State Budget of the USSR for 1953], available at: https://istmat.org/files/uploads/38468/ rgae_1562.33.1739_otchet_ob_ispolnenii_gos._byudzheta_za_1953_god.pdf (accessed: 12.12.2023). Postanovlenie Soveta ministrov SSSR "O gosudarstvennom biudzhete Soyuza SSR na 1956 g. " [USSR Council of Ministers Decree "On the State Budget of the USSR for 1956"], available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/765714708 (accessed: 12.12.2023).
Postanovlenie Soveta ministrov SSSR "O strukture i shtatakh tsental'nogo apparata Ministerstva kul 'tury SSSR " [USSR Council of Ministers Decree "On the Structure and Personnel of the Central Apparatus of the USSR Ministry of Culture"], available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/765715763 (accessed: 12.12.2023).
Postanovlenie Soveta ministrov SSSR "Ob utverzhdenii Polozheniya o Ministerstve kul'tury SSSR" [USSR Council of Ministers Decree "On the Approbation of the Regulation of the USSR Ministry of Culture"], available at: http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&base=ESU&n= 30709#5PCsGYTMXsBFzEWf (accessed: 12.12.2023).
"The Structure of the Ministry of Culture of France" (1990), Ekspress-Informatsiya, 4, p. 1-12. "Law from 15 March 1953 on the Reorganization of Ministries of the USSR", in Mandelshtam Yu.I. (ed.) (1956), Sbornik zakonov SSSR i ukazov Prezidiuma Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR 1938 g. / iul ' 1956 g. [Collection of USSR Laws and Decrees of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, 1938 - July 1956], GIIuL, Moscow, USSR, p. 78-80.
References
Ahearne, J. (2009), "Cultural Policy Explicit and Implicit: A Distinction and Some Uses", International Journal of Cultural Policy, № 15:2, pp. 141-153.
Bakanov, S.A. (2021), "State Budget of the USSR in the 1950s-1980s: The Structure of Income and Expenditure", Nauchnyy dialog, № 5, pp. 304-326.
Beaulieu, B. & M. Dardy (2002), Histoire administrative du ministère de la culture 1959-2002. Les services de l'administration centrale, Documentation française, Paris, France, 207 p. Beloshapka, N.V. (2009), " State Cultural Governance in the USSR : Mechanism, Methods, Policies", Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. SeriyaIstoriya i filologiya, № 5:2, pp. 87-103. Beloshapka, N.V. (2012), Gosudarstvo i kul'tura v SSSR: ot Khrushcheva do Gorbacheva [State and Culture in the USSR: From Khrushchev to Gorbachev], Izdatel'skiy dom 'Udmurtskiy universitet', Izhevsk, Russia, 317 p.
Cabanne, P. (1981), Le pouvoir culturel sous la Ve République, Olivier Orban, Paris, France, 447 p. Cannistrato, Ph.V. (1970), "Burocrazia e politica culturale nello stato fascista : Il Ministero della cultura popolare", Storia contemporanea, June, pp. 169-193.
Cannistrato, Ph.V. (1975), "Mussolini's Cultural Revolution: Fascist or Nationalist?", Journal of Contemporary History, № 7: 3, pp. 115-139.
Dijan, J.M. (1996), La politique culturelle, Le Monde, Paris, France, 282 p.
Dobrenko, E. (2020), Late Stalinism: The Aesthetics of Politics, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, 584 p.
Dobrenko, E., Clark, C., Artizov, A. & O. Naumov (eds.) (2007), Soviet Culture and Power: A History in Documents, 1917-1953, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, 545 p.
Dubois, V. (1999), La politique culturelle: genèse d'une catégorie d'intervention publique, Belin, Paris, France, 382 p.
Dubois, V. (2016), 'The French Model and its Crisis: Ambitions, Ambiguities and Challenges of a Cultural Policy", Débats, № 130:2, pp. 81-97.
Duzenov, A.M. (1982), "A. Malraux and the Politics of the Fifth Republic in the Domain of Culture", in Ibrashev, Zh.U. (ed.), Razvitie gosudarstvenno-monopolisticheskogo kapitalizma vo Frantsii i ideolog-icheskaya bor'ba [The Development of State-Monopolistic Capitalism in France and the Ideological Struggle], Kazakh State University, Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, pp. 129-139.
Fitzpatrick, Sh. (2002), The Commissariat of Enlightenment: Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts Under Lunacharsky, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 408 p.
Foulon, Ch.-L. (2019), "La création du ministère des Affaires culturelles: le pari réussi de Charles de Gaulle et André Malraux", Revue politique et parlementaire, 15.08.2019, available at: https://www.revuepolitique.fr/la-creation-du-ministere-des-affaires-culturelles-le-pari-reussi-de-charles-de-gaulle-et-andre-malraux/ (accessed: 12.12.2023).
Gershzon, M.M. (2010), "Ministry of Culture of the Soviet Union in 1953-1963", Russkiy sbornik. Is-sledovaniyapo istorii Rossii, № VIII, pp. 274-388.
Gershzon, M.M. (2016), "The Cultural Policy of the Soviet Union in 1953 - Early 1954", Prepodavatel' XXI, № 4, pp. 441-458.
Gershzon, M.M. (2018), Zakat Stalina i ottepel': upravlenie kul'turoy d SSSR 1950-kh - nachale 1960-kh gg. [Decline of Stalin and Thaw: Management of Culture in the USSR in the 1950s - early 1960s], Modest Kolerov, Moscow, Russia, 392 p.
Gershzon, M.M. (2021), "In search of an optimal structure of cultural management in the USSR (19531963)", KLIO, № 170:2, pp. 96-101.
Gershzon, M.M. (2022), Ministerstvo kul'tury SSSR v realizatsii kul'turnoy politiki v 1953-1963 gg. [Ministry of Culture of the USSR in the Carrying Out of Cultural Policies in 1953-1963], extended abstract of PhD dissertation, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia, 28 p.
Golovkina N.L. (2008), "The Creation and Activities of the Committee on Arts Affairs of the USSR (Second Half of the 1930s)", Istoriki razmyshlayut, № 6, pp. 128-138.
Khestanov, R. (2013), "What did the party intend to manage by creating the Ministry of Culture of the USSR?", in Glushchenko, I. (ed.), Vremya, vpered! Kul'turnayapolitika v SSSR [Time, forward! Cultural policy in the USSR], ID VShE, Moscow, Russia, pp. 35-50.
Khestanov, R. (2014), "The Role of Culture in Early Soviet Models of Governance", Studies in East European Thought, № 66, pp. 123-138.
Kiselev, M.Yu., Kireeva, L.I., Toshchakova, N.G. & L.V. Charskaya (2004), Otdel kul'tury TsKKPSS. 1953-1966: Spravochnik: (Annotirovannye opisi) [Department of Culture of the CC of the CPSU 1953. Handbook. Annotated Inventories], ROSSPEN, Moscow, Russia, 296 p.
Kosenko, S.I (2008), Politika kul'tury ili kul'turapolitiki: opyt Frantsii [Policy of Culture of Culture of Policy: The Experience of France], Vostok-Zapad, Moscow, Russia, 240 p.
Kosenko, S.I. (2007), "Distinctive Features of France's Cultural Policy on the Boundary of the Centuries", VestnikRUDN, № 3. pp. 81-87.
Kotolikova, T.G. (2017), "The Main Directions of State Policy of France in the Field of Culture in the 1960s-1970s", Almanakh sovremennoy nauki i obrazovaniya, № 117:3, pp. 46-48. Kurennoi, V. (2013), "Soviet Experiment of Institutions Building", in Glushchenko, I. (ed.), Vremya, vpered! Kul'turnaya politika v SSSR [Time, forward! Cultural policy in the USSR], ID VShE, Moscow, Russia, pp. 12-34.
Mossuz, J. (1970), André Malraux et le gaullisme, Armand Colin, Paris, France, 316 p.
Mozhina, V.A. (2011), "The Problem of Decentralization in France's Cultural Policies in the 1960s",
Vestnik Orlovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, № 16:2, pp. 305-309.
Muzychuk, V.Yu. (2007), "The Development of Culture in the Soviet Period", in Abalkin, L.I. (ed.), Ekomicheskaya istoriya SSSR [The Economic History of the USSR], Infra-M, Moscow, Russia, pp. 220256.
Négrier, E. (2017), "Le ministère de la Culture et la Politique culturelle en France : Exception culturelle ou exception institutionnelle?", HAL Open Science Preprint, available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01442310 (accessed: 12.12.2023).
Novellino, F. (2016), Tra guerra e pace. Il Ministero della Cultura Popolare dalla 'non belligeranza' alla disfatta in Grecia, PhD Thesis, University of Torino, Italy.
Ogryzko, V.V. (2019), Ministry Sovetksoy kul'tury [Ministers of Soviet Culture], Literaturnaya Rossiya, Moscow, Russia, 296 p.
Ory, P. (1989), L'aventure culturelle française. 1945-1989, Flammarion, Paris, France, 241 p. Ory, P. (1994), La belle illusion. Culture sous le signe du Front Populaire, Plon, Paris, France, 1033 p. Ory, P. (2004), L'Histoire culturelle, PUF, Paris, France, 128 p.
Poirrier, Ph. (2000), L 'etat et la culture en France au XXe siècle, Livres de poche, Paris, France, 258 p. Poirrier, Ph. (2007), "Un demi-siècle de politique culturelle en France en France", Diversité ville école intégration, pp. 15-20, available at: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00404794/document (accessed: 12.12.2023).
Poirrier, Ph. (2013), "Introduction", in Poirrier, Ph. (ed.), La politique culturelle en débat, anthologie 1955-2012, La Documentation française, Paris, France, pp. 19-40.
Poujol, G. (1991), 'The Creation of a Ministry of Culture in France", French Cultural Studies, № 6:2, pp.251-260.
Rauch, M.-A. (1998), Le bonheur d'entreprendre. Les administrateurs de la France d'outre-mer et la création du Ministère des Affaires culturelles, Comité d'histoire du Ministère de la culture, Paris, France, France, 195 p.
Rigaud, J. (1996), Pour une refondation de la politique culturelle, La Documentation française, Paris, France, 201 p.
Rioux, J.-P. (1990), "La création du ministère de la culture", Vingtième siècle: revue d'histoire, № 27:1, pp.115-116.
Sassatelli, M. (2007), "The Arts, the State, and the EU: Cultural Policy in the Making of Europe", Social Analysis: The International Journal of Anthropology, № 51:1, pp. 28-41.
Shilov, D.N. (2021), "P.N. Demichev - Minister of Culture of the USSR During the 'Stagnation' (Biographical Sketch)", Vestnikkul'tury i iskusstv, № 68:4, pp. 55-69.
Urfalino, Ph. (1996), L'invention de la politique culturelle, La documentation française, Paris, France, 427 p.
Urfalino, Ph. (1997), "Quelles missions pour le ministère de la culture?", Esprit, № 228:1, pp. 37-59. Wachtel D. (1987), Cultural Policies and Socialist France, Greenwood Press, New York, USA, 114 p. Williams, R. (1976), Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Fontara/Croom Helm, London, UK, 286 p.
Дата поступления рукописи в редакцию 12.03.2023
КУЛЬТУРА И ГОСУДАРСТВО: СОЗДАНИЕ МИНИСТЕРСТВ КУЛЬТУРЫ В СССР И ФРАНЦИИ В СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОЙ ПЕРСПЕКТИВЕ, 1953-1959 ГОДЫ
А. И. Головлев
Школа исторических наук факультета гуманитарных наук НИУ ВШЭ, 127051, Россия, Москва,
ул. Старая Басманная, д. 21/4
agolovlev@hse.ru
SPIN-код: 5173-8763
ResearcherlD: H-2316-2015
Scopus Author ID: 57194392537
Сравниваются создание и организационные основы министерств культуры в СССР и Франции. Основанные в 1950-х гг., министерства существенным образом отличаются от большинства тогдашних европейских практик. С одной стороны, этим признавалась особая роль государства в управлении культурой, с другой - министерства не имели четко определенной сферы компетенций, стратегической политики и властных ресурсов. Во Франции создание отдельного министерства культуры в немалой степени было вызвано желанием присвоить Андре Мальро министерский ранг и отдать должное культуре как части национальной идентичности. И наоборот, советский режим стремился утвердить символическую независимость культуры от пропаганды, одновременно повышая статус культуры в государственном аппарате. В обоих случаях министерство культуры было политически слабым, и в Советском Союзе назначение на пост министра культуры было сродни понижению по сравнению с высокими партийными постами. Мальро оказался оставленным без детального плана и значительных экономических и кадровых ресурсов, а советское министерство было сравнительно недофинансируемым и находилось в подчиненном положении по отношению к отделу культуры ЦК КПСС. Хотя советское и французское решения о повышении управления культурой до министерского уровня принимались независимо друг от друга, они обнаруживают глубокие параллели в существующих в советском и французском обществе представлениях о культуре, управлении и ценности культурных благ и габитуса, которые были важнее, чем конкретная политика управления культурой.
Ключевые слова: управление культурой, культурный менеджмент, история культуры, советская оттепель, голлизм, министерство культуры.
^исок источников
Аппарат ЦК КПСС и культура. 1953-1957 / сост. В.Ю. Афиани. М.: РОССПЭН, 2005. 805 с. Государственный бюджет СССР за четвертую и пятую пятилетки: 1946-1950, 1951-1955. Стат. сборник. Л.: Госфиниздат, 1957. 139 с.
Закон от 15 марта 1953 г. о преобразовании министерств СССР // Сборник законов СССР и указов Президиума Верховного Совета СССР 1938 г. / июль 1956 г. / сост. Ю.И. Мандельштам. М.: ГИЮЛ, 1956. С. 78-80.
О государственном бюджете Союза ССР на 1956 г.: Постановление Совета министров СССР [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/765714708 (дата обращения: 13.02.2023). О структуре и штатах центрального аппарата Министерства культуры СССР: Постановление Совета министров СССР [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/765715763 (дата обращения: 12.02.2023).
Об утверждении Положения о Министерстве культуры СССР: Постановление Совета министров СССР [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&base=ESU&n=30709# 5PCsGYTMXsBFzEWf (дата обращения: 12.02.2023).
Отчет об исполнении государственного бюджета СССР за 1953 г. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://istmat.org/files/uploads/38468/rgae_1562.33.1739_otchet_ob_ispolnenii_gos._byudzheta_za_1953_god.p df (дата обращения: 12.02.2023).
Структура Министерства культуры Франции // Экспресс-Информация. 1990. № 4. С. 1-12.
Budget de l'Etat. Fiches Culture - fiche 29 (2011). URL:
https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Media/Thematiques/Etudes-et-statistiques/Files/Publications/Questions-de-
culture/Culture-medias-2030_variables/Culture-medias-2030_fiche-29_Budget-de-l-etat (accessed: 12.02.2023).
Décret du 22 juillet 1959 relatif à la composition du Gouvernement // JORF. 1959. 26.07. Р. 7411.
Décret du 3 février 1959 (attributions du ministre de la Culture) // JORF. 1959. 4.02. Р. 1556.
Décret n° 59-889 du 24 juillet 1959 portant organisation du ministère chargé des affaires culturelles // JORF.
1959. 26.07. Р. 7413.
Библиографический список
Баканов С.А. Государственный бюджет СССР в 1950-1980-е годы: структура доходов и расходов // Научный диалог. 2021. № 5. С. 304-326.
Белошапка Н.В. Государственное управление культурой в СССР: механизм, методы политика // Вестник Удмурт. ун-та. История и филология. 2009. № 2. С. 87-103.
Белошапка Н.В. Государство и культура в СССР: от Хрущева до Горбачева. Ижевск: Удмуртский университет, 2012. 317 с.
Гершзон М.М. В поисках оптимальной структуры управления культурой в СССР (1953-1963) // КЛИО. 2021. Т. 170, № 2. С. 96-101.
Гершзон М.М. Закат Сталина и оттепель: управление культурой в СССР в 1950-х - начале 1960-х гг. М.: Модест Колеров, 2018. 392 с.
Гершзон М.М. Культурная политика Советского Союза в 1953 - начале 1954 гг. // Преподаватель XXI. 2016. № 4. С. 441-458.
Гершзон М.М. Министерство культуры СССР в 1953-1963 гг. // Русский сборник. Исследования по истории России. 2010. Вып. VIII. С. 274-388.
Гершзон М.М. Министерство культуры СССР в реализации культурной политики в 1953-1963 гг.: авто-реф. дис. ... канд. ист. наук. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2022. 28 с.
Головкина Н.Л. Создание и деятельность Комитета по делам искусств СССР (вторая половина 1930-х гг.) // Историки размышляют. 2008. № 6. С. 128-138.
Дузенов А.М. А. Мальро и политика Пятой республики в области культуры // Развитие государственно-монополистического капитализма во Франции и идеологическая борьба / ред. Ж.У. Ибрашев. Алма-Ата: Изд-во КазГУ, 1982. С. 129-139.
Киселев М.Ю., Киреева Л.И., Тощакова Н.Г., Чарская Л.В. Отдел культуры ЦК КПСС. 1953-1966: справочник (аннотированные описи). М.: РОССПЭН, 2004. 296 с.
Косенко С.И. Особенности культурной политики Франции на рубеже веков // Вестник РУДН. 2007. № 3. С. 81-87.
Косенко С.И. Политика культуры или культура политики: опыт Франции. М.: Восток-Запад, 2008. 240 с. Котоликова Т.Г. Основные направления государственной политики Франции в области культуры в 1960-1970-е гг. // Альманах современной науки и образования. 2017. Т. 117, № 3. С. 46-48. Куренной В. Советский эксперимент строительства институтов // Время, вперед! Культурная политика в СССР / ред. И. Глущенко. М.: ИД ВШЭ, 2013. С. 12-34.
Можина В.А. Проблема децентрализации в культурной политике Франции в 1960-е гг. // Вестник Орлов. гос. ун-та. 2011. Т. 16, № 2. С. 305-309.
Музычук В.Ю. Развитие культуры в советский период // Экономическая история СССР / ред. Л.И. Абалкин. М.: Инфра-М, 2007. С. 220-256.
Огрызко В.В. Министры Советской культуры. М.: Литературная Россия, 2019. 296 с.
Хестанов Р. Чем собралась управлять партия, создав Министерство культуры СССР // Время, вперед!
Культурная политика в СССР / ред. И. Глущенко. М.: ИД ВШЭ, 2013. С. 35-50.
Шилов Д.Н. П.Н. Демичев - министр культуры СССР эпохи застоя. Биографический очерк // Вестник культуры и искусств. 2021. Т. 68, № 4. С. 55-69.
Ahearne J. Cultural Policy Explicit and Implicit: A Distinction and Some Uses // International Journal of Cultural Policy. 2009. Vol. 15, no. 2. P. 141-153.
Beaulieu B., Dardy M. Histoire administrative du ministère de la culture 1959-2002. Les services de
l'administration centrale. P.: Documentation française, 2002. 207 p.
Cabanne P. Le pouvoir culturel sous la Ve République. Р.: Olivier Orban, 1981. 447 p.
Cannistrato Ph. V. Mussolini's Cultural Revolution: Fascist or Nationalist? // Journal of Contemporary History. 1975. Vol. 7, no. 3. P. 115-139.
Cannistrato Ph. V. Burocrazia e politica culturale nello stato fascista : Il Ministero della cultura popolare // Storia contemporanea. 1970. Р. 169-193.
Dijan J.M. La politique culturelle, P.: Le Monde, 1996. 282 p.
Dobrenko E. Late Stalinism: The Aesthetics of Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2020. 584 p. Dubois V. La politique culturelle: genèse d'une catégorie d'intervention publique. P.: Belin, 1999. 382 p. Dubois V. The French Model and its Crisis: Ambitions, Ambiguities and Challenges of a Cultural Policy // Débats. 2016. Vol. 130, no. 2. P. 81-97.
Fitzpatrick Sh. The Commissariat of Enlightenment: Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts Under Lu-nacharsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 408 p.
Foulon Ch.-L. La création du ministère des Affaires culturelles : le pari réussi de Charles de Gaulle et André Malraux // Revue politique et parlementaire. 2019. 15.08. URL: https://www.revuepolitique.fr/la-creation-du-ministere-des-affaires-culturelles-le-pari-reussi-de-charles-de-gaulle-et-andre-malraux/ (accessed: 12.02.2023). Khestanov R. The Role of Culture in Early Soviet Models of Governance // Studies in East European Thought. 2013. No. 66. Р. 123-138.
Mossuz J. André Malraux et le gaullisme. P.: Armand Colin, 1970. 316 p.
Négrier E. Le ministère de la Culture et la Politique culturelle en France: Exception culturelle ou exception institutionnelle? // HAL Open Science Preprint. 2017. URL: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01442310 (accessed: 12.02.2023).
Novellino F. Tra guerra e pace. Il Ministero della Cultura Popolare dalla 'non belligeranza' alla disfatta in
Grecia. Tesi dottorale. Torino: Università degli studi di Torino, 2016.
Ory P. L'aventure culturelle française. 1945-1989. P.: Flammarion, 1989. 241 p.
Ory P. L'Histoire culturelle. Р.: PUF, 2004. 128 p.
Ory P. La belle illusion. Culture sous le signe du Front Populaire. Р.: Plon, 1994. 1033 p. Poirrier Ph. Introduction // La politique culturelle en débat, anthologie 1955-2012 / ed. Ph. Poirrier. P.: La Documentation française, 2013. P. 19-40.
Poirrier Ph. L'etat et la culture en France au XXe siècle. Р.: Livres de poche, 2000. 258 p.
Poirrier Ph. Un demi-siècle de politique culturelle en France en France // Diversité ville école intégration. 2007.
P. 15-20. URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00404794/document (accessed: 15.02.2023).
Poujol G. The Creation of a Ministry of Culture in France // French Cultural Studies. 1991. Vol. 6, no. 2. P.
251-260.
Rauch M.-A. Le bonheur d'entreprendre. Les administrateurs de la France d'outre-mer et la création du Ministère
des Affaires culturelles. P.: Comité d'histoire du Ministère de la culture, 1998. 195 p.
Rigaud J. Pour une refondation de la politique culturelle. P.: La Documentation française, 1996. 201 p.
Rioux J.-P. La création du ministère de la culture // Vingtième siècle: revue d'histoire. 1990. Vol. 27, no. 1.
P. 115-116.
Sassatelli M. The Arts, the State, and the EU: Cultural Policy in the Making of Europe // Social Analysis: The International Journal of Anthropology. 2007. Vol. 51, no. 1. P. 28-41.
Soviet Culture and Power: A History in Documents, 1917-1953 / ed. E. Dobrenko, Cl. Clark, A. Artizov, O. Naumov. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007. 545 p.
Urfalino Ph. L'invention de la politique culturelle. P.: La documentation française, 1996. 427 p. Urfalino Ph. Quelles missions pour le ministère de la culture? // Esprit. 1997. Vol. 228. No. 1. P. 37-59. Wachtel D. Cultural Policies and Socialist France. NY: Greenwood Press, 1987. 114 p. WilliamsR. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. L.: Fontara/Croom Helm, 1976. 286 p.
