Читаем Summerfolk полностью

106. Note, e.g., the roundtable “Vremena goda: Problemy otdykha,” LG, 18 July 1973, 12, where one of the contributors, Iu. N. Lobanov, reported the results of a survey of leisure habits in Leningrad: “Before we began the study many of us held the conviction that ‘dachas are on the way out.’ But the figures show the reverse, and people’s responses confirm that ‘we’d like to have a place out of town!’”

107. Renting out private houses as dachas was permitted by the Civil Code in the 1960s, on condition that rents were capped. Even so, it is hardly surprising that private landlordism received plenty of negative coverage in the Soviet press: see G. D. Andrusz, Housing and Urban Development in the USSR (Albany, 1984), 104–6.

108. Published information on dacha construction in the 1960s–70s is scanty, some of it is summarized in D. Shaw, “Recreation and the Soviet City,” in The Socialist City: Spatial Structure and Urban Policy, ed. R.A. French and F. E. I. Hamilton (Chichester, 1979), esp. 129–31. A survey of workers and employees at a Leningrad engineering works in 1965 found that 87.9% of respondents did not have a dacha, plot of land, or kitchen garden; by 1970 there was a slight but marked increase, and “mental workers” outnumbered physical laborers by 2 to 1. See I. Trufanov, Problems of Soviet Urban Life, trans. J. Riordan (Newtonville, 1977).

109. S. Kozlov, “Puti organizatsii massovogo otdykha v prigorodnoi zone,” in Sozdanie krupnykh kompleksov kurortov, mest otdykha i turizma, ed. A.V. Roshchina (Moscow, 1972), 54, 56.

110. See Iu. A. Vedenin, S.I. Panchuk, L.S. Filippovich, and E.G. Iudina, “Formirovanie dachnykh poselkov i sadovykh kooperativov na territorii moskovskoi aglomeratsii,” Izv. AN SSSR: Seriia geograficheskaia, no. 3 (1976), 72–79.

111. V. S. Preobrazhenskii, Iu. A. Vedenin, N. M. Stupina, L. S. Filippovich, and I. Chalaia, “Problemy territorial’noi organizatsii rekreatsionnoi deiatel’nosti v Moskovskoi oblasti,” Izv. AN SSSR: Seriia geograficheskaia, no. 6 (1982), 90. In 1982 the Moscow trade union organization reported that over 1,000 enterprises and organizations in the city had garden associations; in 1980 a “Moscow voluntary society of gardeners” had been set up (TsMAM, f. 718, op. 1, d. 2528, ll. 6–7). The available evidence suggests that demand for garden plots remained high in the provinces too during the 1970s: see GARF, f. R-5451, op. 30, d. 646 (trade union reports from 1979).

112. A. Denisov, “Lichnoe podsobnoe khoziaistvo,” Ekonomika sel’skogo khoziaistva, no. 4 (1978), 125. According to this article, garden plot occupiers in the RSFSR were allowed to build summer houses with solid-fuel heating of between 12 and 25 square meters in “useful area” with a terrace of up to 10 square meters; the outbuilding could be up to 15 square meters, and rabbits and chickens could be kept there. This does not mean, of course, that official attitudes were by any means laissez-faire in the 1970s. There was still the occasional sally against garden settlements as hotbeds of private property and the unofficial economy. But it is perhaps significant that a crude example of this genre (K. Kozhevnikova, “Sad za gorodom,” LG, 10 Nov. 1976, 11) met a response from more than 150 irritated readers, some of whose letters were published the following year (ibid., 26 Jan. 1977, 11).

113. Iaroshenko, “Spory o chlenstve v sadovodcheskikh tovarishchestvakh.”

114. Irina Chekhovskikh, interview no. 4 (see “Note on Sources”). The involvement of men in home repairs and in cultivation of the “personal subsidiary farming plot” was noted by Soviet sociologists in the 1960s and 1970s: see L. Gordon and E. Klopov, Man after Work (Moscow, 1975), 91.

115. V. Zikunov, “Kondratova dacha,” in his Rodinskie kolodtsy: Rasskazy (Krasnoiarsk, 1990), 41, 44

116. Ibid., 42.

117. These quotations are taken from another piece of standard-issue late Soviet fiction: T. Nikolaeva, “Prodaetsia dacha,” in her Na malen’koi stantsii: Povesti i rasskazy (Gor’kii, 1987), 114 and 94, respectively.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Косьбы и судьбы
Косьбы и судьбы

Простые житейские положения достаточно парадоксальны, чтобы запустить философский выбор. Как учебный (!) пример предлагается расследовать философскую проблему, перед которой пасовали последние сто пятьдесят лет все интеллектуалы мира – обнаружить и решить загадку Льва Толстого. Читатель убеждается, что правильно расположенное сознание не только даёт единственно верный ответ, но и открывает сундуки самого злободневного смысла, возможности чего он и не подозревал. Читатель сам должен решить – убеждают ли его представленные факты и ход доказательства. Как отличить действительную закономерность от подтасовки даже верных фактов? Ключ прилагается.Автор хочет напомнить, что мудрость не имеет никакого отношения к формальному образованию, но стремится к просвещению. Даже опыт значим только количеством жизненных задач, которые берётся решать самостоятельно любой человек, а, значит, даже возраст уступит пытливости.Отдельно – поклонникам детектива: «Запутанная история?», – да! «Врёт, как свидетель?», – да! Если учитывать, что свидетель излагает события исключительно в меру своего понимания и дело сыщика увидеть за его словами объективные факты. Очные ставки? – неоднократно! Полагаете, что дело не закрыто? Тогда, документы, – на стол! Свидетелей – в зал суда! Досужие личные мнения не принимаются.

Ст. Кущёв

Культурология