Into the Cosmos Page 33
spaceflight material culture was increasing in volume as well. The Twenty-
first Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in
1959 gave official sanction to independent private collecting organiza-
tions for the first time in Soviet history. Although stamp collecting had
been tolerated in the Soviet Union as unavoidable to generate income
from foreign sales of stamps, post officials in the Soviet Union did little
to encourage domestic collection before the 1960s.20 Official sanction of
collecting societies was, in part, a concession to rising economic expecta-
tions in the Soviet Union, especially among the youth. The generation
born after World War II had no firsthand knowledge of the deprivations
through which their parents had lived. Therefore they expected more
than their parents did. Through official and semiofficial channels the
state attempted to meet those expectations.
There were two primary areas of space-themed collecting in the So-
viet Union during the early to mid-1960s—stamps and the small lapel
pins, the znachki. The former were the products of tightly government-
controlled production. The latter came from diverse organizations with
little oversight on matters of design and message. Young people expected
that these promises made to an older generation would be kept for them
as well. The historian Joel Kotek has discussed the importance of direct-
ing the youth movement by Khrushchev-era leaders in the Soviet Union
during the late 1950s and early 1960s.21 He has outlined the need for
Soviet attention in that matter, including the avid competition with the
United States for the post–World War II youth movement. Rising expec-
tations of postwar youth was therefore not unique to the Soviet Union.
220 Cathleen S. Lewis
Much of the Western-oriented material culture research and writing
on collections (and collecting societies) carry the assumption that per-
sonal collecting is a consequence of a fully developed consumer society.22
This assumption excludes noncapitalist societies from the discussion. The
logic is that only consumer societies have adequate disposable income to
support collecting nonessential goods.23 This presumption neglects the
obvious fact that all economies harbor markets, and governments have
limited influence over supply and demand no matter what the ideology of
the state. Although the existing literature overlooks collections in social-
ist societies, especially the Soviet Union, it is possible to draw appropriate
conclusions from this literature on the history of collecting in the USSR.
Historians have traced the origin of modern political and social re-
strictions against collecting and consumerism to the emergence of medi-
eval sumptuary laws, which restricted the material trappings of affluence
to the rich and powerful.24 Centuries ago in European societies, outward
signs of affluence were held as an indication of elevated status in society.
Socialist and Communist regimes shunned such displays to avoid the
appearance of class distinction. When the sumptuary philosophy of Com-
munism in the USSR conflicted with the nascent consumerism of the
1960s, the promise of domestic satisfaction overrode ideology. Although
the post-Stalinist turn to consumerism was illusory, the illusion was as
important as Marxist ideology was to the state and would be invoked
even during declarations of approaching Communism. While Marxism
decried consumerism as a philosophy, the impossibility of infiltrating
private lives completely and obligatory tolerance of market forces dictated
that at least a rudimentary consumerism existed in the Soviet Union.
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union there have been periods
when the government has publicly tolerated or even encouraged consum-
erism. The most notable period of toleration was during the period of
the New Economic Policy (NEP), when the state sought to harness small-
market forces to induce economic growth.25 The film industry during the
NEP was one example of a Soviet state-sanctioned field that developed as
a direct consequence of these liberalized economic policies. The imple-
mentation of the five-year planning cycles in 1928 ended official tolerance
of independent domestic trade.26
Even during years in which small profits were tolerated, domestic
economic transactions bore the burden of state ideology. The favored
transactions were those that increased foreign trade and generated rev-
From the Kitchen into Orbit 221
enues for the state. Few consumer goods were available for domestic con-
sumption. Later, during the period of rapid industrialization followed by
World War II, the public had little expectation of consumer goods. By
the late 1950s, after Khrushchev’s “secret speech,” when Stalinist ideol-
ogy had lost its motivating value, a transformation took place, granting
consumer production a new, higher status.27 This shift in culture is an
indication of attempts to provoke consumerism as a driver of economic
development. Whereas Soviet rhetoric had been against consumption, its
political rhetoric acknowledged an economic multiplier effect that pro-
vided economic benefits to society. As a result, Soviet anticonsumerism
only campaigned against personal consumption, not state consumption.
One of the consequences of de-Stalinization had been a loosening
of the political economy to the point where even if the society had not
achieved an “unlimited good” status, the limitations on expectations
had relaxed. Although the concept of the unlimited good society might
seem to be contrary to Khrushchev’s 1961 proclamations of impending
Communism at the fall party congress, it was not. The presumption of
expanded wealth matches the expectation of having all needs satisfied
for the population.28 It was also consistent with the actions of the state at
the time that, while unwilling to acknowledge ideological and economic
flaws, it was willing to use tactics that roused consumerist tendencies,
especially among the youth in the country. This vicarious support of indi-
vidual consumerism provided a limited answer to the high expectations
among the population for rewards after the sacrifices of World War II.
There are two schools of thought among those who acknowledge and
study the growth of consumerism in the Soviet Union during the 1960s.
The first is the unmet-demand school that asserts that the Soviet state
sought to satisfy built-up consumer demand with illusions consisting of
exhibitions of unavailable consumer goods and offers of malfunctioning
products.29 They base their arguments on the growth of exhibitions of
consumer goods and the change in interior design during this period.30
The abandonment of Stalinist aesthetics coincided with the increased ap-
pearance of consumer goods. The second argument is a Marxist interpre-
tation that criticizes late Soviet materialism as a departure from Marxist
principles.31 The former approaches the history of Soviet consumerism
through the material evidence of the time. The latter argument adheres
closel
y to the philosophical underpinnings of the Soviet state and at times
ignores the reality of commercial exchange.
222 Cathleen S. Lewis
Art historian Susan Reid, in her discussion of consumption in Soviet
society, has analyzed Khrushchev’s tentative steps to depoliticize consum-
erism in the Soviet Union. Focusing on the Nixon-Khrushchev “kitchen
debate” in Moscow at the American National Exhibition in 1959, Reid
traced how Soviet domestic expectations and international politics col-
lided at the display of the General Electric kitchen. Although the “kitchen
debate” was between the representatives of the two superpowers, it re-
flected the conflict that the Soviet Union was having within itself.32 Even
before the declarations of the Twenty-second Party Congress in 1961,
Khrushchev had promised that the USSR would pass the West economi-
cally, but Soviet domestic economic reality challenged the credibility of
that promise. The display of a state-of-the-art American kitchen made
the inconsistency even more apparent, revealing that what was a com-
monplace expectation for American households was beyond fantasy for
Soviet ones.33 Even as the Americans displayed appliances, Khrushchev
insisted that space hardware was a surrogate for Soviet domestic appli-
ances, arguing that Soviet space accomplishments compensated for the
lack of consumer goods. Soviet washing machines were display objects at
the Exhibition of Economic Achievements, as American objects had been
at the 1958 Moscow exhibition. Models of spacecraft displaced the appli-
ances at the Exhibition of Economic Achievements (Vystavka Dostizhenii
Narodonogo Khoziastvo, or VDNKh) within a few years.34
The two types of small collectible items available to the Soviet popu-
lation in the 1960s, stamps and znachki, illustrated the subject matter
of spaceflight. The former did so under the tight control of the Ministry
of Post and Telegraph, with its well-established conservative limits on
design. The latter did so with little centralized control over design or dis-
tribution. These differing situations offer an opportunity to compare the
messages on human spaceflight that each presented to the Soviet public.
Differences in origins could possibly generate differences in messages.
Stamps
Stamp collecting had a long history in Russia and the Soviet Union.
In the nineteenth century, stamp collecting promoted tourism and geo-
graphical education among the collecting intelligentsia. In the twentieth
century, a strict interpretation of Bolshevik dogma on the part of midlevel
postal bureaucrats placed collecting stamps among other bourgeois activ-
From the Kitchen into Orbit 223
ities that should never receive domestic encouragement if not prohibited
outright.35 In his history of the pre–World War II Soviet stamp bureau-
cracy, Jonathan Grant has pointed out that regulating stamp collecting
reflected a deeper requirement for Soviet control of society. Grant argues
that Soviet strict control of philately during the period between 1929 and
1939 indicates their larger desire to maintain state control of the larger
society.36
Although postal bureaucrats did not choose to eliminate collectible
stamps altogether, the stamps that resulted from this era were largely
destined for consumption abroad. The method of restricting collecting
to foreign markets was quite simple: stamp denominations determined
the market. The more interesting and aesthetically appealing stamps
were issued in high denominations. Higher-denomination stamps were
airmail stamps that were destined for foreign destinations.37 Even when
they were more aesthetically pleasing, their messages were strict inter-
pretations of Soviet propaganda. They became “visual statements of the
values that the regime espoused and desired to foster among the popu-
lation. In this light, these virtual representations revealed the regime’s
conception of how Soviet society should be structured.”38 After Stalin’s
death the organization and methods of Soviet philately did not change
significantly. The stamps produced through the 1950s were full of pro-
paganda and continued to recap Soviet industrial, technical, and military
accomplishments. Instead of depending on symbols and quick slogans,
these stamps took on more ponderous tones: “In the post-Stalin years,
Party platforms continued to occupy a prominent place on Soviet stamps
but were presented in a different manner. Gone were the brief heroic
slogans of the Stalin era that urged economic mobilization and in their
place were rather lengthy excerpts from Party congresses.”39 Despite their
best intentions, the Ministry of Post and Telegraphs was not producing
stamps whose messages drew attention either at home or abroad.40
The design for airmail stamps did not vary much from domestic
ones, despite the fact that they were destined for consumption abroad. So-
viet industrial achievements and social and political milestones were the
themes that dominated airmail stamps. This trend continued through
the 1930s, when in 1939 at the New York World’s Fair the Soviet Pavilion
featured stamp exhibits that recounted Soviet aviation endeavors.41 More-
over, even in the 1960s stamps continued to include long quotations from
party congresses. The resulting stamps left an unsatisfied appetite for
224 Cathleen S. Lewis
aesthetically pleasing and inspirational stamps at the dawn of the space
age. Furthermore, they were ineffective as instruments of propaganda,
spreading the message of Soviet accomplishments to largely capitalist
communities that might not learn of these accomplishments otherwise.
Around the same time, domestic regulations loosened and stamp collect-
ing became part of an officially sanctioned social organization in the late
1950s and early 1960s. The Twenty-first Party Congress was the first time
that collecting organizations were officially recognized as independent
social groups, receiving official party sanction. Thus the atmosphere for
the domestic collection of stamps was set before the flight of Yuri Gaga-
rin. The first Vostok flight provided new imagery for Soviet stamps.
In anticipation of Gagarin’s flight on April 12, 1961, the Soviet Min-
istry of Communications prepared three stamps for distribution in the
denominations of three, six, and ten kopeks.42 The ministry released
these stamps within days of the flight. Youth magazines promoted their
sale and collection. For example, the magazine Pioner devoted the inside back cover of its August 1961 issue to these stamps.43 Each of the three
stamps was consistent with traditional Soviet approaches to the design
and marketing of stamps. The three-kopek stamp in a domestic-mail de-
nomination provided only the basic details of Gagarin’s flight. The top of
the stamp carries the title “Man from the Country of Soviets in Space.”
Around Gagarin’s portrait are the words “First Cosmonaut in the World.”
On either side are pictures of a generic rocket and an illustration of the
Hero of the Soviet Union medal that Khrushc
hev had awarded him im-
mediately after his flight. The design of the stamp could easily be mis-
taken for the graphic equivalent of the front page of Pravda. There was no effort at aesthetic innovation.
The six-kopek stamp for international mail followed the post-
Stalinist tradition of bearing long quotations from party officials. The
two-part stamp illustrates Vostok, a ballistic missile, and a launch vehicle rocket flying over the Kremlin with a radar dish on the side on the top portion that carries the postage mark and the same title as the three-kopek
stamp. The lower portion carries the quotation from Nikita Khrushchev’s
early statement about the Gagarin flight: “Our country was the first to lay
down the path to socialism. He was the first to enter space, and opened
the new era in the development of science.”44 The largest denomination
stamp in the first Gagarin set was similar to the other two. The ten-kopek
stamp, too, features an image of Gagarin’s launch vehicle flying over the
From the Kitchen into Orbit 225
Kremlin and the title “Person from the Land of the Soviets in Space.”
However, this foreign-envelope postage stamp did not have an additional
section with a quotation from Khrushchev because a long quote in Rus-
sian was of little value to the international public.
These first stamps honoring Gagarin were created and distributed in
a short time period. It is not surprising that the ministry made little effort
to transform the aesthetic approach to stamp design at that time. There
had been no shake-ups within the ministry to change its manner of do-
ing business. It had merely adapted the message of human spaceflight
to its format of miniaturizing Pravda or Izvestiia headlines into a stamp format. Subsequent stamps that honored the flights of Vostok 2 through
Vostok 6 were similar in detail. For example, the set of stamps that came out in honor of the dual missions of Vostok 3 and Vostok 4, which carried cosmonauts Adrian Nikolaev and Pavel Popovich, respectively in overlapping missions, are little different from the stamp issues the year before
commemorating German Titov’s first full day in space on board Vostok
2 in August 1961.45 In all three cases the stamp featured a portrait of the cosmonaut, his name, the date of the mission, and a stylized illustration
of the spacecraft. In all three cases the stylization of the spacecraft did