The dacha is a sometimes beloved; sometimes scorned Russian dwelling. Alexander Pushkin summered in one; Joseph Stalin lived in one for the last twenty years of his life; and contemporary Russian families still escape the city to spend time in them. Stephen Lovell's generously illustrated book is the first social and cultural history of the dacha. Lovell traces the dwelling's origins as a villa for the court elite in the early eighteenth century through its nineteenth-century role as the emblem of a middle-class lifestyle; its place under communist rule; and its post-Soviet incarnation.A fascinating work rich in detail; Summerfolk explores the ways in which Russia's turbulent past has shaped the function of the dacha and attitudes toward it. The book also demonstrates the crucial role that the dacha has played in the development of Russia's two most important cities; Moscow and St. Petersburg; by providing residents with a refuge from the squalid and crowded metropolis. Like the suburbs in other nations; the dacha form of settlement served to alleviate social anxieties about urban growth. Lovell shows that the dacha is defined less by its physical location"usually one or two hours" distance from a large city yet apart from the rural hinterland―than by the routines; values; and ideologies of its inhabitants.Drawing on sources as diverse as architectural pattern books; memoirs; paintings; fiction; and newspapers; he examines how dachniki ("summerfolk") have freed themselves from the workplace; cultivated domestic space; and created informal yet intense intellectual communities. He also reflects on the disdain that many Russians have felt toward the dacha; and their association of its lifestyle with physical idleness; private property; and unproductive use of the land. Russian attitudes toward the dacha are; Lovell asserts; constantly evolving. The word "dacha" has evoked both delight in and hostility to leisure. It has implied both the rejection of agricultural labor and; more recently; a return to the soil. In Summerfolk; the dacha is a unique vantage point from which to observe the Russian social landscape and Russian life in the private sphere.
#338333 in Books 2011-10-01 2011-10-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x .47 x 6.00l; .64 #File Name: 0801039290208 pages
Review
35 of 37 people found the following review helpful. Incredible Insight and LessonsBy Edward J. HasserttI am a patriotic disabled vet and a Christian pastor. This book made me think about war in ways I had never considered. It is insightful; well written and a great read. I found it hard to put down which is not usual for a philosophy/theology book. No mater if you are a pacifist; just war theorist; or an advocate of preventive war; you will learn something if you read this book with an open mind.Honestly; after reading this book; it is impossible for me; as a pastor to defend our wars from the aspect of Christianity any longer.6 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Plenty gold to be mined hereBy Grant MarshallI enjoyed this book. Hauweras' central thesis is that in the death and resurrection of Christ war itself has been abolished. For Christians we are then called to live non-violently in the world as we follow Christ and seek to embody his Kingdom. This point was excellent and thoroughly biblical. I think Hauweras could have strengthened his case by discussing Revelation 5 where the Lion John hears is the slain lamb. Another major point is that war is a sacrificial system. Those who die in war make those for whom the have died feel obligated to accept their gifts and repay them in kind. For Hauweras America is a country that cannot live without war. It provides a common and cohesive story that binds the nation together. It also gives us a common enemy to fight against; and people are never so united as when they have a common enemy. However; I wasn't totally convinced by this point. A national identity can be forged in the furnaces of war; but I've always seen America's national identity as "Life; Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Yet there are connections between that identity and War; especially if we are willing to go to war to protect; and in some cases enforce in other nations. American's have rarely been willing to die for Christianity or any other sectarian faith; but have regularly been willing to die for the nation. This gives us some idea of the religious power behind the nation state. These points are worked out in Parts 1 and 2. There is so much gold to be mined in these parts that I will no doubt re-read them soon.In part 3 Hauweras focuses the difference that body of Christ makes to the world and war. His discussion on Jesus as the justice of God was excellent; rooting the idea of justice not as an abstract or external concept to which Christianity is accountable but something that cannot be understood apart from Christian theological concepts and practices. The last few chapters in this section were a bit too technical and philosophical for me to follow.I did have two main concerns with the book. Hauweras repeatedly said that the gift Christians can give the world is the refusal to kill each other. This conclusion; which Hauweras reached on multiple occasions; often came out of nowhere and was not a valid conclusion from the arguments he was advancing. Note that he says "each other" not others. The implication is that Christians are out there actively killing other Christians. Evidently Hauweras felt no need to substantiate this with statistics; citations or research. I had to wonder if there was some epidemic of Christians killing each other that we needed to oppose? Secondly; even if you agree with him in regards to pacifism he doesn't answer two crucial questions that everyone will eventually ask or be asked: (1) Can a Christian serve in the Military? (2) What about war that is truly in self defence? One thinks of Hitler invading Poland or North Korea invading the South. I find pacifism works fine for me and my own life. It's gets very difficult to take to a national level. I kept wanting these questions to be answered but they never were. To be fair I think these questions were not the central focus of his book. I got the impression that he was trying to do some big picture stuff; and shift the discussion beyond the tradition Pacifist; Just-War or Crusade categories. However a little bit on these questions would no doubt have helped greatly.On the whole; even with my concerns; I found the book to be excellent food for thought; especially parts 1 and 2.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Overall good; but not quite a 5By C. AndersonGood explanation but a bit disjointed at times.
