Introduction
The articles “Encounters with Permafrost” by Pey-Yi Chu (2018) and “Technology and the Conquest of the Soviet Arctic” by Paul Josephson (2011) both address the complex topic of Arctic exploration during the early decades of the Soviet Union. Driven by a combination of political ideology, scientific endeavor, and human capabilities of survival, the multifaceted decades-long efforts demonstrated both major successes and countless failures. Both authors describe the challenges and progress made in Arctic exploration and industrialization of the Arctic, but each with an individual approach: an environmental and anthropological-oriented perspective by Chu and a political, socio-economic-centered view by Josephson.
Themes and Question
Although the general theme tying together both articles is the Soviet exploration of the Arctic region, there are a number of subthemes that both authors explore. Chu (2018) focuses strongly on the environmental aspect of the exploration, with discussions targeting methods used and consequences for the region as well as the anthropological perspective of human migrations and adaptation to the Arctic as they sought to ‘conquer’ it through technology. There are also mentions of the political discourse in the Soviet attempts to expand in the region and how it was portrayed in public media in comparison to the realities of the situation (Chu 2018). Josephson (2011) touches on multiple political themes as well in the Soviet pursuit of settling the Arctic and making it a source of significant riches. The author also discusses social perceptions and realities as well as the socioeconomic costs of achieving the feat, through scientific and industrial exploration efforts, changes that had to be made to funding and organization of the Soviet mission, and potential long-term impacts.
The primary question that both authors pose, which likely unites all the themes and perspectives, is whether the aggressive exploration of the Arctic by the Soviets was worth the human, economic, and environmental consequences and costs accrued over decades? In the end, the result remained relatively similar of a harsh region which is sparsely populated, with arguably limited natural resource production, but with significant environmental scars due to the detrimental practices which have been adopted. While humans have adapted to survive in the Arctic circle and technology has made great leaps based on these explorations, the devastating impact of pursuing politically focused socioeconomic goals has shifted the status quo of both human and natural ecosystems in the region in a manner that will continue to have an impact in the 21st century.
Thesis
The thesis in Chu’s article suggests that in regard to Arctic exploration and industrialization there was a difference between the rhetoric of aggressive conquest propagated by the Soviet government for social purposes and the realities of practices used which were aimed at preserving the environment and adapting to it in the process of survival in the context of the region’s constraints. To support the thesis, the author sets up the context of the argument and then goes on to discuss specific elements with both logical and emotional appeal. He presents a broad anthropological view which combines perspectives and literature of the time to the modern understanding of what events unfolded which allows to juxtapose and see the bigger picture in the rhetoric and practices in the process of this ‘conquest’ of the Arctic (Chu 2018).
Meanwhile, Josephson (2011) argues that the Soviet exploration and attempts at industrialization of the Arctic ultimately resulted in significant breakthroughs on the science surrounding the Arctic ecosystems and technological progress that was necessary to survive and thrive in the harsh climate. The exploration inherently tested the limits of human technology, ingenuity, and capabilities of the Soviet state as significant efforts and resources were dedicated to this endeavor. However, there were numerous challenges encountered both predictable and unpredictable, with far-reaching consequences and a human toll due to erroneous judgment and political pursuits of the Soviets at the time. The thesis is argued by providing a narrative, with sections focusing on vital specific elements of the technological development in the context of the Arctic exploration, backed by key developments in Soviet history and policy (Josephson 2011).
Evidence
Chu (2018) uses a wide range of evidence ranging from systematic reviews, critical articles, case studies, and background information and expert opinions. He combines both primary and secondary research on the topic. The evidence of supporting the argument consists of using major literature of the time on the topic, and critically analyzing it. Chu employs everything to linguistic analysis to political discourse. He also creates a timeline of progression regarding adaptation in the Arctic, that is supported by documentary evidence. Finally, Chu presents a clear discussion on the topic encompassing all the evidence to drive the thesis and the general environmental impact. Overall, the author presents a convincing argument that is logical and concise for such a complex topic and approach. Claims are supported by evidence; the Chu makes solid comparisons and conclusions that are rational in the context of the argument and are extensively convincing. Chu takes on an anthropological technocratic approach to the topic, exploring vast associations between large influencing forces of environment, political ideology, scientific/technological endeavor, and sociology.
In the article, Josephson (2011) uses an evidence-based approach to building the argument. The evidence is presented categorically, with each type of technology explored distinctly. Each section follows a chronological narrative loosely, which allows seeing the progression of the technology and the political, scientific, and socioeconomic factors which have influenced it in the period of early Arctic exploration by the Soviets. Unlike Chu (2018), Josephson (2011) relies significantly more heavily on data, more likely due to the nature of the thesis, heavily utilizing the historic data alongside records and events to support his point. Overall, the evidence is convincing as well. The article reads similar to a history textbook, with everything outlined and appropriate historical evidence with data, years, and everything presented in the context of the narrative. There are very few points where the author makes his arguments or discourse, but rather relies on the evidence presented to support the main thesis. It is not persuasive per se, rather just effective in driving the argument.
Understanding and Interest of the Subject
Each article presented a unique perspective on the subject matter of historic Arctic exploration and industrialization by the Soviet state. Josephson (2011) provided an in-depth exploration of the technological and practical challenges in the context of the general political and socio-economic status quo and events at the time. There is a general narrative regarding how the Soviet government and bureaucracy shifted and morphed around the Arctic exploration, which led to significant progress but also extensive costs, many of which one would not typically consider. Meanwhile, Chu (2018) offers this philosophical anthropological perspective which contrasts but supplements the highly detailed and nuanced approach of Josephson. That is not to say that Chu is not detailed, as he is also very meticulous in the analysis, but the purpose of his article is to present this connection between the environment, technology, and human adaptability in the harsh climate of the Arctic, which underwent phases, which in turn can be compared to the technological descriptors presented by Josephson, and appropriate conclusions can be made on the general overarching topic and themes.
What was the most interesting about the articles is their attention to detail, particularly regarding the linguistics and culture of the Soviet people and state at the time. Both utilize and explain a multitude of Russian terms as they indeed serve an important role in understanding the pursuit that was ultimately undertaken by the Soviets and challenges they faced. In the context of politics and socioeconomics, understanding the underlying mindset and cultural ambitions to these inherently technical and scientific efforts is critical to grasping the decision-making that was undertaken by each stakeholder (government, public, scientific community, etc).
Conclusion: Further Research
Neither article directly nor extensively raises questions for further research. It becomes clear that in terms of historic events, information is abundant regarding the Soviet pursuit of the Arctic industrialization. Albeit Chu (2018) does bring up the discourse between propaganda and realities of the expeditions, also mentioned somewhat by Josephson (2011) in terms of political demands from those responsible for overseeing the project. However, the biggest context for further research that both parties mention is the environmental aspect in the context of modern science knows about global warming and critical nature of the Arctic permafrost. There are implications from both authors that the often irresponsible and aggressive attempts to industrialize the Arctic by the Soviets without much regard for the environment, ecology, or local ecosystems, with remnants of the fossil-fuel-based infrastructure operating to this day, maybe highly consequential for the future. Therefore, as an area of potential research it may be relevant to consider further inquiry regarding the environmental impacts of Soviet activities and its impact on the ecology of the region in the future.
References
Chu, Pey-Yi. 2018. “Encounters with Permafrost. The Rhetoric of Conquest and Processes of Adaptation in the Soviet Union,” In Eurasian Environments: Nature and Ecology in Imperial Russian and Soviet History, edited by Nicholas Breyfogle, (Series in Russian and East European studies), pp. 165-187. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Josephson, Paul. 2011. ” Technology and the Conquest of the Soviet Arctic,” The Russian Review, 70(3): 419-439.