Separate Yet Governed: The Representation of Soviet Property Relations in Civil Law and Public Discourse

Abstract

In studying social life, we face a difficult choice when deciding which analytical terms to apply. Should we apply universal concepts which maintain their definition across diverse fields of inquiry? Should we establish provisional definitions for the purpose of our study in order to provide a lens through which to describe the sphere of social life we are examining? Or should we limit ourselves to “native” analytical terms that the subjects of our study used to describe social life in their own time and place? There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Universal definitions allow comparison across space and time, but inevitably impose models of thought not suitable for many, if not all, of the cases under question. Provisional definitions permit deeper insight into the case at hand, but make intercultural comparisons difficult. Native categories give great insight into the self-understanding of historical subjects, but using such categories frequently leads us to accept myths people tell about themselves.