Voices in the Field 181The disadvantage of memoirs, especially those in archives or those of
state employees, is that they rarely reveal positions and attitudes that refute
state policies and the established or dominant narrative, despite some reve-
lations of doubt.^4 The study of Soviet nationalities policies absolutely requires
the response of non- state actors who can provide the “view from below.” Yet
the archives only rarely provide this counternarrative, because they strive to
chronicle how the state and its machinery have constructed a society from the
common clay of citizens.
In contrast to oral history, state archives typically pres ent an instru-
mentalist view of history. Instrumentalists view society as an “ imagined
community” in continuous churn and re- creation.^5 However, the “utopia of
continuous change” often lapses into ideology or fiction. State archives are
the “ideological superstructures” of the state that overemphasize the contri-
butions of its leaders, officials, and their institutions. The Soviet archives in
Rus sia are under constant revising and editing, which results in the removal
of pages, files, or fonds that fall outside of the state’s guidelines. These ar-
chives are viewed as the (con temporary) ideological expressions and exten-
sions of the Soviet state. Their revision is seen as impor tant due to the Soviet
link as a progenitor state to Rus sia of the twenty- first century.^6
As an example of the difference between oral history and archives,
“Imagine if Khai Ir Ti (the Korean NKVD agent) had been assigned by his
superiors to write several missives chronicling the work of the Chernogorsk
NKVD (much like Geitsman’s letters).” Hypothetically, his letters for the
state would tell a completely diff er ent story, in both content and tone, than
the guilt- stricken nightly confessions he forced upon his family. From my
experience, the “view from below” (the common citizen and social history)
can best be told through interviews and fieldwork, which are then supported
secondarily by archival sources. Conducting several interviews with a sub-
ject would optimally allow the interviewer to encounter and understand some
degree of variance within the individual, his/her narrative, and the commu-
nity. State archives have their limits and biases, and this fact should be bet-
ter recognized by historians, po liti cal scientists, sociologists, and the like.
Initially, a fter reading much of the academic lit er a ture on oral history
and how one should conduct interviews, I had a litany of theories, sugges-
tions, and scholarship notated and memorized. However, as the interviews
began, I noticed that a “ human factor” took pre ce dent over all the others.
This factor was simply that the subjects (narrators) must feel comfortable in
order to recall and speak about their lives at length and in depth, including
details and contradictions. Simply put, a request for an interview from an
unknown “researcher” will always be a proposition that places the subject at