Why did United States sovietology fail to anticipate the possibility of Soviet change? An examination of American sovietological literature from 1974 to 1988

Problem. How did American Sovietologists view the possibility of fundamental Soviet political change taking place, during the 1970s and 1980s? Why were most of these scholars slow to note the dry rot in the Soviet political structure--and what does this failure suggest about how American Sovietology processed new data and developed new attitudes?;Method. Much evidence of possible Soviet change was readily available to U.S. scholars throughout the cold war period. This data, on such deteriorating conditions as increased infant mortality and stagnant GNP and agricultural output, and on such improvements as the spread of literacy and urbanization (particularly in Central Asia), suggested both the need for innovation and the fact that social changes were already taking place in the USSR.;This study identifies eighteen statistical indicators and geopolitical trends of Soviet social, economic, and political change that were evident from 1974 (the approximate start of the second half of the Brezhnev era) to 1988 (the eve of the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe). After categorizing American Sovietological literature into three intellectual schools--realist writings, political cultural-historicist scholarship, and incipient pluralist works--this study examines how individual Sovietologists responded, from 1974 through 1988, to the emerging evidence that Soviet change was possible.;Results. In light of this evidence, American Sovietologists should have anticipated the possibility of fundamental Soviet change occurring. Yet many American scholars misread this data. New information on Soviet economic decline and social alienation was often discounted, as were the political implications of socio-economic modernization. Most Soviet experts saw an anti-Western Soviet Union as a permanent feature of world politics; well into the 1980s, they believed that the Soviet leaders would not tolerate, let alone initiate, systemic change. A minority of scholars saw Soviet change as possible, but their views did not gain intellectual credibility in government or academia.;Conclusion. This study concludes that although much good Sovietological research was done during the 1974-through-1988 period, most American scholars ignored or misread the evidence suggesting that Soviet political change was possible, due to established but flawed ways of thinking about the USSR.