2007/06/01 by M. Jimmie Killingsworth · 21 citations
Social Sciences · #Eastern European Communism and Reforms #Soviet and Russian History #Historical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics #Dissent #Typology #Opposition (politics) #Civil society #Public sphere #Appropriation #Political science #Political economy #Sociology #Law #Politics #Epistemology
paper · open access · doi:10.1080/17448680701390745
published in Journal of Civil Society 3(1), 59-79 (Taylor & Francis)
openalex publication_date 2007/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
Following the collapse of Communist regimes in 1989, academics and dissidents alike were quick to claim that agents of ‘civil society’ had played an integral role in the 1989 ‘Velvet Revolutions’. However, the appropriation of civil society to explain events in Eastern Europe is highly problematic. In arguing that civil society offers an inappropriate framework in which to study opposition and dissent in Soviet type regimes, this article recommends dismissing the typology for this particular scenario. Instead, a new typology, the totalitarian public sphere, is introduced. This article concludes by elaborating on why the totalitarian public sphere serves as a more comprehensive typology by which to explain dissent and opposition in Soviet type regimes.