Title: “Theories and methods of studying everyday life. Everyday life during communism” Authors: Maria Mateoniu, Mihai Gheorghiu How to cite this article:

Title: “Theories and methods of studying everyday life. Everyday life during communism” 

Authors: Maria Mateoniu, Mihai Gheorghiu 

How  to  cite  this  article: 

Mateoniu, Maria and Mihai Gheorghiu. 2012. “Theories and methods of studying  everyday life. Everyday life during communism”. Martor 17: 7‐18. 

Published  by:  Editura MARTOR  (MARTOR  Publishing  House),  Muzeul Țăranului  Român  (The  Museum of the Romanian Peasant) 

URL:  http://martor.muzeultaranuluiroman.ro/archive/revista‐martor‐nr‐17‐din‐2012/ 

 

Martor (The Museum of the Romanian Peasant Anthropology Review) is a peer‐reviewed academic journal  established in 1996, with a focus on cultural and visual anthropology, ethnology, museum studies and the dialogue  among these disciplines. Martor review is published by the Museum of the Romanian Peasant. Its aim is to  provide, as widely as possible, a rich content at the highest academic and editorial standards for scientific,  educational and (in)formational goals. Any use aside from these purposes and without mentioning the source of  the article(s) is prohibited and will be considered an infringement of copyright. 

     

Martor (Revue d’Anthropologie du Musée du Paysan Roumain) est un journal académique en système peer‐review  fondé en 1996, qui se concentre sur l’anthropologie visuelle et culturelle, l’ethnologie, la muséologie et sur le  dialogue entre ces disciplines. La revue Martor est publiée par le Musée du Paysan Roumain. Son aspiration est de  généraliser l’accès vers un riche contenu au plus haut niveau du point de vue académique et éditorial pour des  objectifs scientifiques, éducatifs et informationnels. Toute utilisation au‐delà de ces buts et sans mentionner la  source des articles est interdite et sera considérée une violation des droits de l’auteur. 

           

Martor is indexed by EBSCO and CEEOL. 

C

ommunist­everyday­life­is­paradoxical­and miraculous­in­the­extreme.­Communist everyday­life­is­constantly­in­a­state­of­unsolv- able­tension­that­nonetheless­always­finds­a­so- lution,­ an­ incontestable­ impossibility­ of survival­that­always,­inevitably,­ends­in­sur- vival,­continuity,­the­vital­gesture­of­resistance as­ a­ human­ being­ confronted­ with­ mecha- nisms­of­dissolution,­of­terror­or­carceral­dis- cipline,­of­a­society­that­aims­to­transform­the human­being­into­a­biological­mechanism,­a soldier­fighting­for­the­cause­of­the­apocalyp- tic­victory­of­the­communist-proletarian­econ- omy­and­justice.

Communist­ everyday­ life­ is­ the­ space- time­continuum­of­an­eternal­counterfeiting­of all­authentic­existence,­of­all­moral,­ethical­au- thenticity.­However,­not­in­the­least­paradoxi- cally,­communist­everyday­life­is­the­error­that becomes­truth,­the­counterfeit­that­is­authen- ticated,­ the­ compromise­ that­ succeeds.­ The gesture­of­everyday­existence,­everyday­sur- vival,­everyday­deceit,­everyday­heroism­–­all combine­ in­ the­ indescribable­ reality­ of­ a doomed­society.­Day­by­day,­each­person’s­ex- istence­impels­towards­survival,­the­fight­for survival,­for­freedom,­for­the­abolition­of­fear and­social­and­political­terror;­day­by­day,­it impels­towards­humanity,­normality,­decency.­

Among­the­ruins­of­the­system,­among­its pillars­of­glory,­among­its­forced­labour­camps, man,­people­beat­a­path,­a­path­of­their­own,­of resistance,­of­lies,­dissimulation­or­heroism.­In his­“struggle”­with­the­system,­with­the­others, who­hold­and­exercise­power,­man­in­turn­ex- ercises­ his­ own­ imprescriptible­ power:­ the power­to­resist,­not­to­become­an­innocent victim­of­the­devouring­mechanism­of­the­po- litical­world.­Even­those­who­allow­themselves to­become­instruments­of­the­system­or­those

who­merely­cooperate­with­it­seek­the­solution of­“humanisation”,­the­softening­of­the­rules and­their­application.­Social­life,­that­is­com- munist­everyday­life­as­governed­by­the­rules of­the­system,­continues­to­subsist,­to­affirm itself­as­life.­Naturally,­everything­is­in­a­state of­permanent­tension,­a­permanent­equilib- rium­ of­ opposing­ tensions.­ In­ essence,­ we must­ understand,­ with­ hindsight,­ what­ has been­tried­and­experienced­directly,­namely that­this­society­existed,­functioned­and­resis- ted­historically­and­succumbed,­that­ideolog- ical­abstraction­was­transformed­into­the­daily exercise­of­power,­of­annihilation­as­well­as­co- operation­and­survival.

Characterised­by­fear,­subversion,­domi- nation,­ salvation­ and­ submission,­ but­ also alignment­and­social­and­economic­success, communist­everyday­life­must­be­examined closely­if­we­are­to­uncover­the­miraculous­or merely­ the­ wretched­ humanity­ of­ the­ man subjected­to­this­historical­experiment.­Look- ing­back,­we­cannot­fail­to­note­the­absolute mystery­of­the­existence­of­communist­soci- ety,­ an­ achieved­ utopia,­ a­ carceral­ society which­resists,­which­defeats­its­citizens­and controls­them,­which­ensures­its­historical­sur- vival­and­only­collapses­because­of­a­malfunc- tioning­ of­ the­ leading­ elite.­ A­ terrible­ and frightening­ spectacle­ of­ human­ nature (Sophocles,­Antigone,­v.­332-374).

Everyday life, theories and methods Daily­life­implies­both­a­reference­to­a­singu- larity,­but­also­a­group,­the­relationship­with oneself­and­the­other,­and­is­always­governed by­relationships­of­identity,­power­and­domi-

Everyday life during communism

Maria Mateoniu, Mihai Gheorghiu

nation.­Nonetheless,­despite­the­tendency­of everyday­life­to­expand­horizontally,­envelop- ing­almost­all­aspects­of­an­existential­nature, the­sphere­of­ordinary,­everyday­life­can­only exist­in­direct­relation­with­an­extraordinary life,­with­that­which­exists­beyond­quotidianity.

That­said,­we­would­be­profoundly­mistaken­if we­ were­ to­ view­ everyday­ life­ as­ being­ that which­is­left­over­of­our­distinct­and­specialised activities,­with­everyday­life­being­rather­the link­between­them,­their­place­of­meeting.

Everyday­life­is­often­mistakenly­confused with­private­life,­which­ignores­the­fact­that­pri- vate­life­is­that­form­of­existence­defined­by­its private,­reserved,­closed­nature.­Always­con- nected­to­public­life,­which­takes­place­in­broad daylight,­in­full­view,­for­all­to­see,­the­ration- ale­of­private­life­is,­on­the­contrary,­a­retreat into­an­intimate­space,­shielded­from­general curiosity.­Yet­daily­life­transcends­the­bound- ary­ between­ public­ and­ private,­ comprising both­activities­that­take­place­in­full­view­–­per- formed­in­the­street,­forming­part­of­the­gen- eral­ realm­ of­ quotidianity­ –­ and­ special, reserved­activities,­removed­from­this­general realm,­affording­them­a­strictly­private­nature.

One­might­say­that­everyday­life­is­expansive, devoid­of­restrictions,­present­in­all­spheres­of existence­and­with­a­clear­tendency­to­disre- gard­all­conventions­and­restrictions.

Anthropology­as­a­discipline­is­based­on the­direct­gathering­of­testimonies­about­life

and­experience­as­well­as­the­participant­obser- vation­of­daily­life,­with­the­aim­of­disseminat- ing­what­is­permanent­and­unconscious­on­a cultural­level­(Augé,­1994).­While­this­focus­on permanences­has­been­abandoned­along­the way,­anthropology­has­nonetheless­not­done away­with­the­ethnographic­method­of­gather- ing­data­and­direct­observation­of­everyday­life.

For­that­matter,­as­with­the­other­humanist­dis- ciplines,­ anthropology­ is­ evolving­ from­ an analysis­of­the­structures­and­frameworks­of everyday­life­towards­a­focus­on­its­subjects,­the individual­experiences­of­everyday­life.

Starting­with­the­1960s,­the­new­history­of everyday­life,­renamed­historical­anthropology, moved­in­the­direction­of­recording­collective attitudes­and­behaviour­with­the­aim­of­high- lighting­certain­processes­and­tendencies­based on­a­model­borrowed­from­the­social­sciences.

Sensitive­to­groups­and­their­representations, historical­anthropology,­however,­ignores­the tangible­nature­of­subjective­experience.­It­is precisely­this­that­the­history­of­everyday­life subsequently­tries­to­recover­by­abandoning the­deep­frameworks­and­structures­of­every- day­life­in­favour­of­an­analysis­of­the­biogra- phies­of­ordinary­people­(Sharpe,­1991:­25)­

We­ can­ speak­ here­ of­ a­ change­ of­ para- digm,­occurring­in­particular­after­the­Second World­War,­that­reorientated­the­humanist­dis- ciplines­ towards­ what­ might­ be­ called­ the

“human­reality”.­Where­is­the­“human­reality”

to­be­found,­asks­Lefebvre­in­his­Critique­of Everyday­ Life.­ Is­ this­ “human­ reality”­ all around­us­or­is­it­hidden­in­mysterious­depths?

In­Marxist­tradition,­Lefebvre­attempts­to­an- swer­ this­ question.­ Human­ reality­ is­ to­ be found­ in­ everyday­ life.­ Everyday­ life­ is­ per- ceived­as­a­totality,­as­the­sum­total­of­relations that­make­what­is­human,­in­general,­as­well­as every­ human­ being,­ in­ particular,­ a­ whole (Lefebvre:109).­It­is­as­part­of­everyday­life­that the­relationships­exist­that­express­the­totality of­the­“real”­–­even­if­certain­aspects­are­par- tial­or­incomplete­–­such­as­friendship,­com- radeship,­love,­the­need­to­communicate,­etc.

(Idem.)­Lefebvre­proposes­a­new­form­of­ra- tionality­that­is­related­to­the­field­of­philoso-

photo©Vlad­Columbeanu

phy­only­in­a­broad­sense,­reversing­the­supe- rior-inferior­type­relationship­representing­a defining­element­of­traditional­philosophy.­In keeping­with­dialectic­materialism,­the­forms of­human­activity,­considered­inferior­by­tra- ditional­philosophy,­become,­in­Lefebvre’s­the- ory,­ the­ sources­ fuelling­ “reason”­ and­ “real social­life”.

One­of­the­fundamental­questions­Michel de­Certeau­in­particular,­though­also­Michel Foucault,­attempted­to­answer­is­to­what­ex- tent­ does­ everyday­ life­ manifest­ itself­ as­ an arena­ for­ the­ reproduction­ of­ relations­ of power­or,­on­the­contrary,­as­a­field­of­inven- tion,­ creation­ and­ resistance­ to­ forms­ of power?

The­particular­aspects­of­everyday­life­re- lating­to­a­tenacious­resistance­to­power­are analysed­systematically­in­the­work­of­Michel de­Certeau.­Questioning­the­relationship­be- tween­everyday­life­and­culture,­Certeau­at- tempts­ to­ indentify­ the­ mechanisms individuals­use­to­present­themselves­as­au- tonomous­persons­in­the­consumer­economy and­ the­ practices­ of­ their­ everyday­ lives (Giard,­1990:­6-7).­Certeau­swaps­the­idea­of consumer­passivity­for­the­well-argued­con- viction­that­there­exists­a­creativity­among­or- dinary­people­by­means­of­which­each­invents his­or­her­own­way­of­following­a­pre-estab- lished­path­among­the­multitude­of­imposed products­(De­Certeau,­1980:­title­page).­Far from­ being­ amorphous­ entities,­ consumers develop­their­own­forms­of­resistance­vis-à-vis the­instituted­order.

In­trying­to­identify­a­logic­particular­to everyday­practices,­Michel­de­Certeau­defines what­he­calls­the­“science­of­the­singular”,­a grammar­of­everyday­practices­analysed­from the­perspective­of­the­specificity­of­their­form (Cf.­Highmor,­op.­cit.:­14).­However,­far­from limiting­himself­to­a­psychologising­approach exclusively­related­to­people’s­individual­paths, Certeau­reanalyses­their­utilitarian,­presumed passive­and­disciplined­actions.­Each­individ- ual­retains­an­incoherent­and­often­contradic- tory­plurality­of­relational­determinations­(De Certeau,­1990:­36).­Certeau’s­aim­is­to­show

the­ operational­ logic­ of­ everyday­ practices, and­ as­ such­ he­ gives­ priority­ to­ the­ modus operandi­ or­ schema­ of­ human­ actions­ that constitute­a­culture­and­not­directly­to­the­sub- jects­or­persons­who­perform­them­(cf.­High- mor,­ op.­ cit.:­ 64).­ This­ “operational­ art”

consists­of­action­by­consumers­that­differs from­ that­ expected­ by­ the­ producers­ of­ the consumer­goods,­a­freedom­that­allows­them to­retain­a­certain­equilibrium,­to­transform and­ invent­ themselves­ in­ an­ environment made­up­of­a­multitude­of­heterogeneous­ele- ments.

Using­the­same­approach­of­questioning minuscule­ and­ everyday­ processes,­ in­ Sur- veiller­et­punir­Michel­Foucault­analyses­the apparatus­of­institutional­power­by­means­of a­painstaking­examination­of­the­miniscule technical­procedures­(devices)­that­govern­dis- courses­and­contribute­to­the­redistribution­of space­such­that­it­is­subject­to­generalised­“sur- veillance”­(Foucault,­1975).­Whereas­Michel Foucault,­ through­ an­ analysis­ of­ miniscule practices­ from­ the­ perspective­ of­ the anonymity­of­the­masses,­favours­the­means­of producing­discipline­and­the­interiorisation­of the­order­by­individuals,­Certeau,­on­the­other hand,­attempts­to­identify­the­miniscule­and everyday­procedures­that­only­conform­to­the mechanism­of­discipline­in­order­to­under- mine­ them­ (De­ Certeau,­ 1990:­ 40).­ In­ his

photo©Vlad­Columbeanu

analysis­of­everyday­practices,­Certeau­inden- tifies­what­neither­Foucault­nor­Pierre­Bour- dieu,­ another­ great­ theoretician­ of­ everyday practices,­are­able­to­identify,­namely­a­move- ment­of­micro-resistance­which­in­turn­leads to­micro-liberty,­mobilising­the­insurmount- able,­hidden­resources­of­ordinary­people­(Cf.

Proulx,­1994:­193-194).

Everyday life during communism in light of the existing research

The­insurmountable­relationship­between­or- dinary­people­and­institutions,­whether­one­of power­and­the­reproduction­of­power­or,­on the­contrary,­of­resistance,­in­practice­and­in spirit,­proves­essential­to­the­understanding­of everyday­life­in­former­communist­societies.

From­the­perspective­of­the­reference­point­of power,­in­the­countries­of­the­former­commu- nist­ bloc,­ the­ state,­ the­ party­ and­ the­ secret services­were­all­synonymous.­The­state­is­per- sonalised,­self-presented­as­possessing­a­phys- ical­entity­that­is­one­with­the­people­(Lefort, 1986:­292-307).­By­means­of­rhetorical,­insti- tutional­and­disciplinary­strategies,­the­state subjugates­its­own­citizens­and­speaks­on­their behalf,­defining­the­parameters­of­what­is­and is­not­permitted,­tolerated.

The­ question­ that­ naturally­ arises­ is­ to

what­extent­can­we­speak­of­a­domination­tout court­of­the­state­over­its­citizens­or,­similarly, the­existence­of­forms­of­resistance,­of­redirec­- ting­power­in­favour­of­individuals­and­their personal­interests?

Studies­of­the­societies­of­the­former­com- munist­bloc­(see­Fitzpatrick,­2000;­2002)­with a­focus­on­everyday­life­are­still­few­in­number, especially­if­we­compare­them­with­those­that seek­to­explain­the­rise,­persistence­and­fall­of socialism­by­reference­to­practices­at­the­level of­the­state.­Individual­lives,­where­mentioned at­all,­are­perceived­as­homogeneous­masses fighting­to­become­free­from­the­constraints imposed­by­a­totalitarian­state­and­assert­their human­ nature­ (Kideckel,­ 2006­ (1993):­ 17;

Sampson­and­Kideckel,­1989).­

From­the­perspective­of­the­studies­focus- ing­ on­ the­ political­ aspect,­ the­ communist regime­is­a­regime­of­occupation­that­was­im- posed­by­force­by­the­Soviet­army­and­main- tained­its­dominance­by­the­use­of­force­and terror.­ “Communism­ would­ thus­ have­ been tolerated,­not­embraced;­disavowed,­not­per- mitted;­rejected­(as­far­as­possible),­not­sup- ported.­In­other­words,­it­would­have­always been­a­reality­that­was­foreign­to­our­collective being”­(Platon,­2004:­31).­

In­this­context,­the­aim­of­studies­of­every- day­life­is­precisely­to­provide­a­more­nuanced description­of­the­position­of­the­state­vis-à-vis its­citizens,­essentially­to­show­the­level­of­ad- herence­of­the­majority­to­the­system­imposed by­force.

Particularly­interesting­in­this­respect­are the­studies­of­everyday­life­from­the­time­of­the communist­regime­in­the­GDR­performed­by researches­ such­ as­ Thomas­ Lindenberger, Michel­Christian,­Sandrine­Kott­and­Jay­Row- ell.­ Lindenberger­ proposes­ a­ relational­ ap- proach­to­power­concentrated­on­the­role­of individuals­viewed­as­actors­in­an­interactional environment.­Domination­implies­not­only­a monopoly­of­power,­but­also­the­minimal­and often­ passive­ acceptance­ of­ the­ dominated (Christian­and­Droit,­2003:­122-123).­Thomas Lindengerger­focuses­on­everyday­police­prac- tices,­the­police­officer­as­a­key­player­in­main-

photo©Vlad­Columbeanu

taining­the­regime­(Lindenberger,­2003).­The police­ together­ with­ the­ most­ active­ party members­ (Christian­ 2002)­ are­ no­ longer viewed­as­simple­external­structures­of­soci- ety,­but,­on­the­contrary,­are­analysed­from­the perspective­ of­ the­ individual­ actors­ among their­ranks.

Coming­from­the­field­of­social­history, but­having­recently­become­interested­in­the historical­sociology­of­politics,­Sandrine­Kott chooses­the­communist­state­enterprise­as­a place­for­the­close­observation­of­and­reflec- tion­ on­ how­ the­ communist­ regime­ mani- fested­ itself­ (Kott,­ 2001).­ Adopting­ a micro-analytic­approach,­the­author­studies the­everyday­reality­of­political­domination observed­ as­ directly­ as­ possible­ within­ the state­ enterprise.­ Influenced­ by­ Michel­ Fou- cault’s­ thoughts­ on­ the­ relational­ nature­ of power,­ Sandrine­ Kott­ analyses­ the­ way­ in which­individual­identities­are­defined;­even where­these­do­not­correspond­with­the­model established­by­the­regime,­they­are­nonethe- less­a­product­of­it.­The­official­discourse­is­in- dividualised,­appropriated­by­ordinary­people, who­highjack­its­meaning.­This­individualisa- tion­of­the­political­does­not,­however,­also imply­the­destruction­of­the­system­–­on­the contrary,­it­contributes­to­its­reproduction­and stabilisation.

Jay­Rowell’s­studies­help­sketch­a­history of­statist­government­with­a­focus­on­the­ac- tors­involved­in­the­government,­the­interac- tion­between­public­and­government­power, and­the­governed,­the­latter­never­hesitating, in­their­relationship­with­the­state,­to­make­use of­their­room­for­manoeuvre­(Rowell,­2005­a, b).­

The­society­of­the­communist­regime­is not­amorphous,­and­in­so­sense­in­opposition to­the­state,­with­both­individuals­and­com- pact­groups­constantly­attempting­to­adapt,­to resist,­to­survive­and­even­to­become­part­of the­system­(Christian­and­Kott,­2009).

Based­on­his­own­field­work,­performed in­Romania­in­a­number­of­villages­in­the­Țara Oltului­ region,­ the­ anthropologist­ David Kideckel­in­turn­observes­how­the­relationship

between­the­state­and­the­people­is­far­from dichotomous.­The­practices­of­everyday­life and­institutional­reproduction­facilitated­the domination­of­the­state,­just­as­they­also­cre- ated­ the­ conditions­ for­ its­ destruction­ and death­(Kideckel,­2006­(1993):­18).

Returning­to­the­early­days­of­the­regime, Adrian­Niculau­provides­a­psychological­ex- planation­for­the­process­by­which­the­major- ity­ identifies­ itself­ with­ the­ new­ system­ of beliefs­and­representations­of­the­social­estab- lished­after­the­Second­World­War.­In­order­to create­a­new,­positive­social­identity,­the­repre- sentatives­of­the­regime­that­came­to­power after­the­war­proceeded­to­label­the­old­social classes­and­categories­in­negative­terms.­They decreed­only­those­groups­that­had­previously had­no­access­to­power,­wealth­or­recognised position­to­be­the­only­“healthy”­social­cate- gories­(Niculau,­2004:­16-17).

The­most­convenient­strategy­for­individ- uals­was­to­“become­part­of­the­context”,­to make­themselves­be­accepted­by­the­system.

(Niculau,­2004:­17).­“You­realise­that­the­old ways­no­longer­have­any­value,­you­compare and­see­that­the­new­cultural­values­and­nor- mative­models­are­not­difficult­to­adopt,­you desire­to­be­assimilated­and­integrated­and­you make­your­choice”­(Niculau,­2004:­17).­The choice­of­the­vast­majority­was­“reconciliation with­the­system”­and,­not­infrequently,­an­at- tempt­to­manipulate­it­to­one’s­own­benefit.­In order­to­integrate­themselves,­most­citizens self-censored­their­own­behaviour,­dissimulat- ing­on­a­communicational­level­(Kligman,­op.

cit.:­18).­

Duplicity­and­complicity­become­the­two main­features­of­everyday­life­under­commu- nism.­It­is­of­this­dual­personality­of­the­man living­under­communism,­a­personality­split between­a­“false”,­public­self­that­meets­the­im- posed­requirements,­and­a­“true”­self,­retreated into­ the­ depths­ of­ its­ being,­ that­ Czesław Miłosz­speaks­in­his­famous­The Captive Mind (Miłosz,­2008).­

Viewed­from­within,­with­hindsight,­from the­perspective­of­one’s­own­existence,­com- munism­is­a­source­of­immorality­through­the

inequitable­ distribution­ of­ resources;­ it­ is­ a regime­of­generalised­dissimulation­and­deceit, of­an­everyday­life­played­out­in­parallel­to­the public­ realm­ as­ controlled­ by­ the­ agents­ of power.­Communist­everyday­life­is­a­space­for expressing­the­delight­of­owning­and­sharing with­one’s­nearest­and­dearest­that­which­is­rare or­forbidden­in­the­official­market,­the­pleas- ure­of­meetings­and­discussions­held­in­small groups­(Liiceanu,­2004:­71-78).

Authors­like­Katherine­Verdery­and­Janos Kornai­analyse­everyday­life­under­commu- nism­from­the­perspective­of­the­economy­of shortage­generated­by­the­state’s­accumulation of­ the­ means­ of­ production­ (Kornai,­ 1992 Verdery,­2003).­The­socialist­state­is­a­central- ising,­bureaucratic­state­that­favours­the­ap- pearance­of­informal­relations­and­the­second economy­(Humphrey,­1998,­Lampland,­1995, Berdahl,­ 1999,­ Verdery,­ 2003;­ Chelcea­ and Lățea,­2004).­The­socialist­system­tends­con- stantly­to­increase­its­power­over­the­allocation of­resources,­investing­primarily­in­the­produc- tion­of­material­means,­in­particular­the­means of­production,­with­a­lesser­focus­on­services or­consumer­goods.­

The­scarcity­of­goods­and­the­appearance of­ queues­ represent­ the­ “visible­ side­ of­ the bankruptcy­ of­ the­ economic­ field­ resulting from­the­tendency­to­expropriate­its­purpose and­only­appears­in­crisis­situations,­at­the­ex- treme­point­of­the­system,­which­oscillates­be- tween­the­danger­of­revolt­due­to­malnutrition and­ the­ danger­ of­ revolt­ due­ to­ libera­- lisation/emancipation.­Most­frequently,­in­Ro- mania,­the­appearance­of­queues­is­associated with­the­growth­in­the­role­of­propaganda­as­a means­of­social­control­(which­seeks­to­define the­needs­and­aspirations­of­the­population­in a­manner­that­is­convenient­to­the­power),­the tightening­of­social­and­political­disciplinary measures,­the­drop­in­the­quality­of­goods,­the increased­ social­ prestige­ of­ those­ in­ charge, etc.”­(Lungu,­2004:­181).­

As­ Pavel­ Câmpeanu­ shows,­ the­ “queue”

known­to­the­majority­of­the­population­can only­ be­ understood­ in­ direct­ relation­ to­ the special­shops­from­which­the­nomenclature­in

particular­were­allowed­to­purchase­goods.­In other­words,­in­the­socialist-type­system­the economic­decisions­are­directly­subordinated to­the­political,­with­all­relations­of­exchange containing­extra-economic­elements.­In­order to­obtain­products­by­standing­in­line,­the­only thing­you­need­apart­from­money­is­time;­in order­to­have­access­to­the­special­shops­re- quired­a­special­ID­that­proved­one’s­loyalty­to the­regime.­The­only­sector­in­which­the­purely economic­aspect­of­exchange­is­retained­is­the

“black­market”­(Câmpeanu,­1994:­160).

Collectivism,­beside­economic­production, also­sought­to­impose­other­practices,­such­as the­adoption­of­the­same­architectural­style,­the standardisation­of­the­school­curriculum,­the obligation­to­wear­a­school­uniform,­the­cor- porate­organisation­of­social­life­and,­last­but not­ least,­ birth­ control­ and­ the­ banning­ of abortion.­In­the­socialist­Romania­of­Nicolae Ceaușescu,­demographic­policy­was­used­to­le- gitimise­state­intervention­in­the­everyday­lives of­its­citizens,­in­births,­work,­schooling,­sexu- ality­and­the­lives­of­couples.­(Kligman,­2000:

18).­

Nonetheless,­the­centralising­and­monop- olising­state­was­far­from­achieving­absolute control­over­everyday­life.­The­socialist­state, the­ “supreme­ entity”,­ as­ Pavel­ Câmpeanu (Câmpeanu,­1988)­called­it,­was­designed­to serve­the­interests­of­a­small­group,­albeit­this did­not­deny­many­other­individuals­the­op- portunity­to­engage­in­a­fierce­competition­for power­and­the­control­of­resources.

Some added colour and detail.

About this issue

The­current­edition­of­Martor­magazine­pro- vides­a­necessary­contribution­to­the­study­of everyday­life­under­the­communist­regime­in Romania,­the­articles­it­contains­bringing­some extra­ colour­ and­ clarity­ to­ what­ constituted day-to-day­life­under­communism­and­what constitutes­our­lives­today,­more­than­twenty years­after­the­fall­of­the­regime.­The­different

themes­and­case­studies­will­help­us­gain­a­bet- ter­understanding­of­both­past­and­present.

Without­fear­of­exaggeration,­many­things­will be­said­about­the­origin­of­deeper­and­more

“eternal”­structures,­about­a­cultural­peculiar- ity­that­neither­begins­nor­ends­with­commu- nism,­ but­ which­ the­ communist­ habitus served­to­entrench.­

The­issue­begins­with­Mihai­Gheorghiu’s essay­ on­ survival­ in­ communism.­ Sharing Berdyaev’s­ conviction­ that­ communism­ is more­a­metaphysical­than­a­strictly­economic or­political­phenomenon,­by­recourse­to­a­rich philosophical­bibliography­as­well­as­his­per- sonal­experience­the­author­sketches­an­en- tirely­ original­ scenario­ of­ life­ under communism.­ “Communism­ was­ a­ colossal force­of­human­self-destruction.”­What­occurs in­ communism­ is

a­taking­of­posses- sion­of­the­human being­through­ter- ror,­“evil,­becomes mechanised,­ be- comes­the­mecha- nism­and­basis­of social­ existence.”

The­ everyday­ life of­ordinary­man­is a­ life­ spent­ in servitude­and­fal- sity.­ This­ “exis-

tence­ in­ the­ underground”­ or

“pseudo-existence”,­as­the­author­describes­it, is­not,­however,­devoid­of­man’s­hope­of­salva- tion.­Under­communism­man­subsists,­suffers, but­is­nonetheless­able­to­discover­how­to­save his­own­humanity­through­a­hidden­relation- ship­with­a­close­other­with­whom­he­shares his­ underground­ existence­ and­ especially through­the­joy­of­rediscovering­God.­­What remains­ of­ the­ apocalyptic­ scenario­ of­ life under­communism­is­man’s­freedom­to­choose

“transcendence­ as­ fundament”,­ freedom shared­and­rediscovered.­

Paradoxically,­man­rediscovers­his­free- dom,­in­particular­in­the­harsh­conditions­of the­underground,­in­an­existence­between­life

and­death.­The­experience­of­prison­tells­us this­very­thing.­Claudia­Dobre’s­article­paints a­ complex­ and­ moving­ picture­ of­ the­ daily lives­of­women­in­communist­prisons­in­Ro- mania.­It­contains­fragments­of­life­histories­of an­utmost­intimacy­that­reveal­the­ability­of the­ former­ inmates­ to­ survive­ in­ the­ harsh conditions­of­incarceration.­Familiar­with­the theoretical­studies­on­everyday­life,­Claudia Dobre­focuses­on­the­ability­of­those­subject to­an­inhumane­prison­regime­to­survive,­to oppose­subversively­the­relations­of­power­and the­systematic­programme­of­destruction.­The author­reconstructs­the­day-to-day­life­of­pris- ons,­the­living­conditions,­the­food,­the­cloth- ing,­hygiene­and­the­ordeals­the­inmates­were subjected­to,­while­also­managing­to­capture the­meaning­this­underground­existence­ac- quires­ in­ time, during­ the­ long and­painful­efforts of­ the­ former­ in- mates­ to­ recon- struct­the­self.

Where­ Mihai Gheorghiu­ and Claudia­ Dobre deal­with­the­exis- tence­ of­ fear­ and terror­ in­ the­ un- derground,­Maria Mateoniu­ mainly focuses­on­social­and­economic­aspects.­The aim­of­her­article­is­to­reconstruct­everyday­life starting­ with­ the­ dynamic­ relationship­ be- tween­public­and­private,­in­particular­that­be- tween­public­and­private­property.­She­bases her­work­on­oral­testimonies­recorded­over­the course­of­two­years,­from­2010­to­2011,­as­part of­a­group­field­research­project­carried­out with­the­support­of­the­Museum­of­the­Ro- manian­Peasant.­This­study­paints­a­complex and­chronological­picture,­from­the­attack­on private­space­through­collectivisation­and­abu- sive­expropriation,­to­the­appearance­and­de- velopment­ of­ practices­ of­ symbolic re-appropriation­of­the­public­realm,­gener- alised­theft­of­state­property­as­a­form­of­re-

photo©Vlad­Columbeanu

appropriating­“collective­property”.

The­oral­testimonies­provide­the­basis­for­a faithful­reconstruction­of­everyday­life­under communism,­while­also­containing­sufficient indications­ of­ the­ relationship­ between­ past and­present,­with­the­article­succeeding­in­con- vincing­us­of­the­utopian­and­bankrupt­nature of­the­regime.­We­find­a­considerable­number of­ similarities­ in­ terms­ of­ subject­ matter­ in Oana­ Mateescu’s­ article,­ published­ fairly­ re- cently­as­part­of­a­group­study­of­the­informal economy­in­post-communist­Romania.­(Chel- cea,­Mateescu,­2005).­Starting­from­a­dynamic definition­of­property,­Oana­Mateescu­shows how­for­the­inhabitants­of­a­village­in­Oltenia stealing­from­a­state­enterprise­becomes­a­form of­taking­possession­of­the­factory,­which­until the­fall­of­communism­represented­their­main source­of­existence­(Mateescu,­2005:­83-113).

Stealing­from­“collective­property”,­which­dur- ing­communism­meant­the­“taking”­of­what was­ rightfully­ yours­ (for­ it­ was­ taking­ from what­was­“common”,­as­one­of­Maria­Mateo- niu’s­interviewees­put­it),­during­post-commu- nism­became­“smart­theft”,­meaning­“only­from the­state”,­where­the­financial­gains­were­far larger­and­the­risks­minimal­(Mateescu,­op.­cit.:

84-85).

Returning­to­the­current­issue­of­Martor magazine,­Petru­Negură­offers­a­consistent­and pertinent­analysis­of­how­the­first­generation of­ Bessarabian­ students­ in­ Romania­ (1990- 1991)­indentifies­with­the­commercial­prac- tices­that­arose­following­the­liberalisation­of borders­and­Romania’s­closer­ties­with­Bessara- bia.­ “Bișniță”­ (black­ marketeering)­ is­ more than­ merely­ a­ survival­ strategy­ or­ a­ way­ of amassing­wealth;­it­is­also­a­means­of­affirm- ing­their­identity­for­the­students­vis-à-vis­the communist­ discourse,­ which­ preached­ the common­ good,­ and­ the­ “idealist”­ values­ of their­parents,­inherited­from­their­family­and native­ community.­ The­ article­ discusses­ the following­aspects:­the­“realisation­of­difference”

by­the­first­students­to­arrive­in­Romania;­the transition­from­black­marketeering­as­a­means of­survival­to­black­marketeering­as­a­means­of amassing­wealth;­different­types­or­differences

between­ “big­ time­ black­ marketeering”­ and

“small­time­black­marketeering”;­the­students’

relationship­with­the­state­and­authority­and their­organisation­into­a­distinct­groups­char- acterised­by­specific­relations­of­solidarity­and power.

This­ is­ followed­ by­ two­ articles,­ by­ Ana Pascu­and­Laura­Jerca,­respectively,­which­look at­everyday­life­from­the­perspective­of­the­in- terethnic­relations­between­the­ethnic­Saxons and­the­Romanians.­In­a­case­study­carried­out in­the­village­of­Alțâna,­in­Sibiu­county,­Ana Pascu­first­studies­the­memory­of­said­two­eth- nic­groups­in­order­to­establish­how­the­com- munities­ have­ viewed­ each­ other­ over­ time.

The­author­describes­how,­in­relatively­calm conditions­(in­the­period­before­the­installa- tion­of­communism),­the­interethnic­relations were­predominantly­governed­by­custom,­that is­the­peaceful­cohabitation­of­the­two­commu- nities­based­on­mutual­respect,­but­with­lim- ited­ interaction.­ The­ dismantling­ of­ this well-regulated­world­occurred­with­the­out- break­of­the­war,­the­detention­and­deportation of­the­Saxons­to­the­USSR,­and­the­confisca- tion­of­property­following­the­installation­of the­ communist­ regime.­ All­ this­ leads­ to­ an equalisation­of­suffering­as­well­as­the­appear- ance­of­various­forms­of­relative­solidarity­vis- à-vis­ the­ common­ enemy­ that­ is­ the communist­state.­The­collectivisation­of­agri- culture­produces,­on­the­one­hand,­a­disman- tling­of­the­old­order­and,­on­the­other­hand,­a

“reconciliation”­between­the­two­communities.

The­ situation­ changes­ with­ the­ fall­ commu- nism,­when­the­common­enemy­disappears, giving­free­reign­to­disputes­and­endeavours­of reclaiming­identity.

While­ Ana­ Pascu­ relies­ mainly­ on­ oral sources­and­field­observations,­meaning­her study­could­easily­be­classified­as­ethnology, Laura­ Jerca­ focuses­ exclusively­ on­ written, mainly­ archive­ material.­ In­ predominantly analysing­aspects­relating­to­the­repression­of the­ethnic­German­population­in­Romania­be- tween­1945­and­1949,­the­forced­expropriation of­ assets­ and­ the­ colonisation­ of­ the­ rural Saxon­communities­by­members­of­other­com-

munities,­Laura­Jerca’s­article­also­reveals­the way­these­rural­communities­survived­the­re- pression­ and­ the­ everyday­ lives­ of­ ordinary people­in­trying­and­dangerous­times.­In­ex- ceptional­times­of­aggressive­state­interven- tion,­it­was­only­natural­that­the­everyday­lives of­ the­ ethnic­ German­ farmers­ in­ Romania would­be­dominated­by­conflict­with­the­com- munist­authorities,­which­ordered­their­evac- uation­and­the­housing­of­settlers­in­houses that­had­be­expropriated­or­were­on­the­verge of­being­expropriated.­There­were­also­many conflicts­ between­ the­ former,­ expropriated owners­and­the­settlers;­the­former­desperately trying­to­retain­the­right­to­live­in­their­houses and­the­latter­exercising­their­right­to­take­pos- session­of­property­“offered”­to­them­by­the state.

Two­of­the­articles­in­this­issue­touch­on the­issue­of­free­time­under­communism­and the­use­of­media­sources­and­technology­in­an attempt­to­become­detached­from­the­official reality­dominated­by­the­cult­of­personality surrounding­the­Ceaușescu­family.­These­are the­texts­by­Adriana­Speteanu­and­Annemarie Sorescu-Marinkovic.

Adriana­Speteanu­looks­at­the­reorganisa- tion­of­free­time­in­Romania­during­the­1980s, starting­with­the­well­known­case­of­the­23rd August­Works.­Between­working­time­and­free time­we­can­speak­of­an­intermediary,­“stati- sised”­time,­monopolised­by­the­state,­this­re- organisation­of­time­being­the­consequence­of a­continual­process­of­ideologisation.­In­focus- ing­ on­ the­ testimonies­ of­ people­ who­ had worked­at­the­23rd­August­Works,­the­author is­able­to­provide­some­real-world­evidence­in support­of­K.­Verdery’s­observation­that­time in­ Romania­ during­ the­ 1980s­ was­ slowed down,­ flattened,­ immobilised­ and­ rendered non-linear­(Verdery,­2003:­63).­And­yet,­apart from­the­time­monopolised­by­the­state­in­the form­of­the­never-ending­marches,­commut- ing­between­the­village­and­the­city,­“patriotic work”­and­the­extended­working­week,­there also­existed­a­free­time­that­the­regime­failed­to control.­Admittedly­limited­in­most­cases­to holidays­spent­with­friends­and­family,­in­the

mountains­or­by­the­sea,­or­to­participation­in games­of­football,­“all­together”,­both­workers and­ engineers,­ temporarily­ oblivious­ to­ all forms­of­hierarchy,­this­type­of­free­time­was nonetheless­like­escaping­from­the­monotone daily­existence,­an­entirely­exceptional­time.

The­ article­ by­ Annemarie­ Sorescu- Marinkovic­is­a­very­successful­example­of­the narrative­interpretation­of­a­“mini­archive”­of oral­testimonies­relating­to­everyday­life­in­the 1980s­in­the­Banat,­on­Romania’s­western­bor- der.­The­central­theme­is­the­watching­of­Yu- goslavian­ television­ by­ inhabitants­ of­ this region­during­the­darkest­and­most­difficult years­of­Nicolae­Ceușescu’s­dictatorship.­In­a context­in­which­the­cult­of­personality­of­the dictator­tended­to­monopolise­the­everyday lives­ of­ Romanians,­ including­ through­ un- precedented­control­of­the­media­(public­tele- vision­broadcasts­were­limited­to­two­hours­a day­ and­ even­ this­ was­ dedicated­ to­ propa- ganda­and­the­cult­of­the­Ceaușescu­family), the­“connection”­of­the­inhabitants­of­the­bor- der­region­to­the­television­broadcasts­of­their neighbours­ provided­ the­ most­ convenient means­of­escaping­the­Romanian­everyday­re- ality­and­adhering­to­the­values­of­the­“free world”.­ Media­ consumption­ is­ only­ one­ of many­ elements­ that­ constitute­ the­ much broader­picture­of­contact­and­exchange­with their­neighbours,­despite­the­impossibility­of crossing­the­border­freely.­This­dynamic­and intense­form­of­contact­would­lead­to­an­ex- pression­ of­ local­ identity­ based­ on­ an­ ex- tremely­ positive­ perception­ of­ the­ Serbian neighbours­and,­later,­an­increasingly­power- ful­sense­of­“Yugonostalgie”­(the­author’s­own term).

The­second­part­of­the­magazine­contains testimonies­and­recollections­of­everyday­life during­communism.­Everyday­life­is­recon- structed­ through­ a­ concentrated­ effort­ of memory­or­a­“spontaneous”,­retrospective­ex- amination­of­long-gone­but­still­vivid,­deeply internalised,­time.­This­section­begins­with­the testimony­of­extraordinary­beauty­and­sincer- ity­ by­ Professor­ Sanda­ Golopenția.­ The Bucharest­ of­ the­ years­ 1949-1950­ is­ the

Bucharest­of­the­narrator’s­childhood,­her­years spent­(amid­the­scent­of­lime­trees)­at­no.­7, Doctor­Lister­Street,­in­the­Cotroceni­district.

Through­the­innocent­eyes­of­a­child­of yesteryear,­we­find­ourselves­transported­to­an extraordinary­quotidian­world,­seeing­for­our- selves­the­rose­garden­tended­by­an­anonymous gardener,­ the­ street­ of­ lime­ trees,­ “which smelled­like­a­huge­tea-pot­every­spring”,­the garden­behind­Elefterie­Church,­where­lambs were­ sold­ around­ Easter,­ the­ florists­ beside Meinl­and­the­grocery­store­where­they­sold fresh­butter.­These­are­the­defining­features­of a­past­world­which­for­this­innocent­child­con- tinues­to­retain­its­secret,­wonderful­charm,­de- spite­the­rationed­dark­bread,­bought­from­a former­university­professor,­or­the­days­when polenta­ was­ the­ only­ staple­ food.­ This­ old world,­despite­the­prospect­of­the­changes­im- posed­by­the­new­regime,­nonetheless­seems­to have­survived,­to­have­retained­its­air­of­times past.­However,­the­account,­while­positive­at the­outset,­gradually­darkens,­acquiring­notes of­sadness.­The­inexplicable­disappearance­of her­father,­of­whose­arrest­and­death­the­child only­learns­later,­and­the­books­and­documents hidden­in­the­cellar­of­the­house­demonstrate the­gravity­of­the­changes­and­the­gentle­suf- fering,­exhibited­with­restraint­out­of­a­sense­of modesty,­but­which­the­reader­can­easily­imag- ine.

Through­ an­ exercise­ in­ self-reflection, professor­Zoltán­Rostás­describes­the­specific conditions­in­which­oral­history­was­practiced during­the­dark­years­of­the­1980s,­as­well­as the­intimate­relationship,­based­on­trust,­be- tween­the­researcher­and­his­subjects.­We­are presented­with­a­few­fragments­of­oral­history that­serve­to­exemplify­the­intrinsic­relation- ship­ between­ researcher­ and­ narrator­ and allow­us­to­move­back­and­forth­between­the narrated­past,­selectively­and­partially­retained in­the­memory,­and­the­present­of­the­1980s.

As­ to­ the­ recollections­ of­ Mirel­ Bănică, they­provide­an­opportunity­for­the­author­to reflect­on­the­exercise­of­memory­(or,­rather, the­lack­thereof)­in­post-communist­Romania.

It­is­no­accident­that­Mirel­Bănică­recounts­an

important­moment­from­his­life­as­a­school pupil­during­communism:­“agricultural­train- ing”.­An­obligatory­activity,­agricultural­train- ing­forms­part­of­the­still­vivid­memory­of­his generation.­Consigned­to­paper,­his­recollec- tions­describe­the­experience­of­pupils­living under­communism,­which­differs­from­that­of children­and­adolescents­living­in­developed, capitalist­societies­today.­The­introduction­to the­article­provided­by­the­author­aims­to­ex- plain­to­the­reader­the­context­of­this­account and­the­role­of­the­witness­in­post-communist Romania.­

Mirela­Florian­provides­us­with­the­story of­a­hero,­a­life­story,­told­as­such.­This­story­is relevant­both­in­terms­of­the­manner­in­which the­protagonist­reconstructs­his­self­(by­creat- ing­his­own­life­story)­and­the­evocative­power of­the­troubled­times­in­which­he­is­living,­both he­and­the­communities­he­passes­through.­In- spired­ by­ one­ of­ the­ books­ compiled­ by Smaranda­Vultur­(Vultur,­2000),­alongside­the story­Mirela­Florian­includes­a­description­of the­preliminary­phase­of­the­research,­inclu- ding­a­portrait­of­the­narrator.­The­author­cap- tures­details­of­the­story­teller’s­communication style,­particular­moods,­gestures­and­hesita- tions,­which­the­audio­recording­and­even­less so­its­transcription­are­able­to­capture.

Bibliography

Benjamin,­W.­(2002).­‘On­some­Motifs­in­Baudelaire’,­in­Highmor, B.­(eds.),­The­Everyday­Life­Reader,­London­and­New­York:­Rout- ledge,­Taylor­Francis­Group:­44-47;

Berdahl,­D.­(1999).­Where­the­World­Ended:­Re-unification­and Identity­in­the­German­Borderland,­Berkeley:­University­of­Cali- fornia­Press;

Bourdieu,­ P.­ (1999).­ Rațiuni­ practice­ –­ o­ teorie­ a­ acțiunii, Bucharest,­Meridiane;

Bourdieu,­P.­(2000).­Simțul­practic,­Iași,­Institutul­European;

Câmpeanu,­P.­(1988).­The­Origins­of­Stalinism:­From­Leninist Revolution­to­Stalinist­Society,­Armonk,­New­York:­M.­E.­Sharpe;

Câmpeanu,­P.­(1994).­România:­Coada­pentru­hrană.­Un­mod­de viață,­Bucharest,­Litera;

Chelcea,­L.­and­Lățea,­P.­(2004).­‘Cultura­penuriei:­bunuri,­strate- gii­și­practici­de­consum­în­România­anilor­80’,­in­Neculau,­A.

(eds.).­Viața­cotidiană­în­comunism,­Iași:­Polirom­:­152-175;

Christian,­M.­(2002).­‘Aux­frontière­de­la­dictature:­l’implanta- tion­du­SED­dans­les­entreprises­est-allemandes­dans­les­années 1960’,­Revue­d’histoire­moderne­et­contemporaine,­vol.­49,­no.­2:

145-176;

Christian,­M.,­Droit,­M.­(2003).­‘Ecrire­l’histoire­du­communisme :­l’histoire­sociale­de­la­RDA­et­de­la­Pologne­communiste­en Allemagne,­en­Pologne­et­en­France’,­Genèses,­no.­61:­118-133;­

De­Certeau,­M.­(1980).­L’invention­du­quotidien,­tome­1:­Arts­de faire,­Paris,­UGE.­Republished­in­1990­and­coordinated­by­Luce Giard,­Paris,­Gallimard;

Highmor,­B.­(2002).­‘Introduction.­Questioning­everyday­life’,­in Highmor,­B.­(eds.),­The­Everyday­Life­Reader,­London­and­New York:­Routledge,­Taylor­Francis­Group:­18-

Humphrey,­C.­(1996).­Max­Went­away­but­Karl­Stayed­behind, Ann­Arbor:­University­of­Michigan;

Kornai,­J.­(1992).­The­Socialist­System:­The­Political­Economy­of Communism,­Oxford:­Clarendon­Press;

Kott,­S.­(2001).­Le­communisme­au­quotidian.­Les­entreprise­d’E- tat­dans­la­société­est-allemagne.­Paris,­Berlin:­Socio-histoires;

Kligman,­G.­(2000).­Politica­dublicității.­Controlul­reproducerii în­România­lui­Ceaușescu,­Bucharest,­Humanitas;

Kideckel,­ D.­ (2006).­ Colectivism­ și­ singurătate­ în­ satele românești.­Țara­Oltului­în­perioada­comunistă­și­în­primii­ani după­Revoluție,­Iași:­Polirom;­

Fitzpatrick,­Sheila­(2000)­Everyday­Stalinism.­Ordinary­Life­in Extraordinary­Times:­Soviet­Russia­in­the­1930’s,­Oxford­Univer- sity­Press.

Fitzpatrick,­Sheila­(2002)­(eds.)­Stalinism:­New­Directions,­Rout- ledge,­London.

Foucault,­M.­(1975).­Surveiller­et­punir,­Paris:­Gallimard;­

Giard,­L.­(1990).­‘Histoire­d’une­recherche­’,­in­Michel­de­Certeau.

L’invention­du­quotidien,­tome­I,­Paris:­Gallimard;

Goffman,­E.­(1973).­La­mise­en­scène­de­la­vie­quotidienne,­I,­II,­

Paris,­Minuit;

Lamplant,­M.­(1995).­The­Objects­of­Labor:­Commodification in­Socialist­Hungary,­Chicago:­University­of­Chicago­Press;

Lefebvre,­H.­(1958).­Chritique­de­la­vie­quotidienne,­Editions­de l’Arche;

Leford,­C.­(1986).­The­Political­Forms­of­Modern­Society:­Bu- reaucracy,­Democracy,­Totalitarianism,­Cambridge,­Mass:­MIT Press;

Liiceanu,­A.­(2004).­‘Cotidianul­comunist’,­in­Neculau,­A.­(eds.).

Viața­cotidiană­în­comunism,­Iași:­Polirom:­71-78;

Lungu,­D.­(2004).­‘Avatarurile­cozii­în­socialismul­de­tip­sovietic’, in­Neculau,­A.­(eds.).­Viața­cotidiană­în­comunism,­Iași:­Polirom:

175-191;

Miłosz,­C.­(2008).­Gândirea­captivă,­Bucharest:­Humanitas;

Neculau,­A.­(2004).­‘Cum­s-a­construit­o­nouă­identitate­socială –­o­nouă­introducere’,­in­Neculau,­A.­(eds.).­Viața­cotidiană­în comunism,­Iași:­Polirom:­11-25;

Platon,­A.­F.­(2004).­‘Între­descriere­și­analiză.­Repere­ale­unei­is- torii­sociale­a­vieții­cotidiene­în­comunism’,­in­Neculau,­A.­(eds.).

Viața­cotidiană­în­comunism,­Iași:­Polirom­:­25-35;

Proulx,­S.­‘Une­lecture­de­l’œuvre­de­Michel­de­Certeau­:­l’inven- tion­du­quotidien,­paradigme­de­l’activité­des­usagers’,­Commu- nication,­vol.­15,­no.­2­:­171-197;

Rowell,­J.­(2005­a).­Le­totalitarisme­au­concret.­Les­politiques­du logement­en­RDA­1945-1989.­Paris:­Economica­(Etudes­poli- tiques);

Rowell,­J.­(2005­b).­‘Les­paradoxes­de­«­l’ouverture­bureaucratique

»­en­RDA’,­Sociétés­contemporaines,­no.­57:­21-40;­

Sampson,­S.­and­Kidesckel,­D.­(1989).­‘Anthropologists­Going into­the­Cold:­Research­in­the­Age­of­Mutually­Assured­Destruc- tion’,­in­Paul­Turner­&­David­Pitt­(eds.),­The­Anthropology­of War­and­Peace,­Hadley,­Massachusetts:­Bergin­&­Garvey:­160- 173;­Sharpe,­J.­(1991).­‘The­History­from­Below’,­in­Burke,­P.

(eds.),­New­Perspectives­on­Historical­Writing,­Cambridge:­Polity Press;­

Verdery,­K.­(2003).­Socialismul­–­ce­a­fost,­ce­urmează­:­Institu- tul­European,­Iași.

­