EVERYONE AT SSEES is a communist. Or at least anti-Western. If you were to meet a typical student at the school, expect to find a hulking eight foot-tall Russian chap sporting a beard, a hip flask and an AK-47. The hip flask is the most important component of the entire outfit - because all SSEES students are drunkards. Without a shot of vodka each morning, and maybe a couple of bites of black bread, no student would be able to muster the energy to storm the citadel of capitalism that is UCL And oh my God! How much effort does it take to write that crazy Cyrillic script? Ïðèêèíü!
Difficult as it is to believe, this is precisely the kind of nonsense that some people would have you believe SSEES is all about. Sure, I’m exaggerating a little. You could probably replace the AK with a T-34 battle tank. But seriously, if you’ve ever caught sight of one of those godawful SSEES site committee posters advertising the Monday night events at the Dent Room, you’ll know what I’m talking about. Hammers and sickles, red and gold imagery, pictures of Lenin! For the almost three years that I have been a student at the school, this stuff has been the bread and butter of a distinct group at SSEES. A group that is very keen on SSEES-ness, and often sceptical of closer integration with UCL. After all, we need to preserve our ‘special identity.’
But what exactly is the SSEES identity? If you listen to the large number of students I polled on this subject, then there is no such thing as SSEES identity. Other students referred to the historical legacy of Tomas Masaryk, who founded the school in 1915 before going on to become the first president of the Czechoslovak Republic. A clear majority of students however simply referred to the raison d’être of the school (easily more helpful than simply namedropping Masaryk). “SSEES is a specialist institution. It is one of the world’s leading research centres for the study of Russia and Eastern Europe” claims SSEES committee president Jo Jenner. “This is what makes SSEES special.”
But this academic conception of the school’s identity doesn’t square with the form of community projected by the SSEES site committee, Masaryk Society and their ilk. For whilst the two groups have on occasion held vaguely academic functions, such as the recent and now standard discussion panel featuring Eastern European ambassadors, the fact is that most of their events revolve around rather generic student activities. Drink nights. Pub crawls. Wine-tasting. Any activity involving the gratuitous consumption of alcohol. Why is this identity so special?
It isn’t. It is surely impossible to refer to a single, coherent SSEES identity and misguided to elevate one identity over another. Institutional identity is always complex, and although I for one subscribe strongly to an academic identity, it is by no means certain or even likely that the default position for most students should be similar. For instance, SSEES students should not automatically be involved in political activism - but there should be a chance for us to try. We don’t need a ‘special identity’, but a vibrant culture to foster any identity we want. Not easy, given the decline of student activism and the site committee’s ability to get College and the Union to endorse its monopoly on SSEES’ identity. Alternatives have no breathing space; poor integration between the postgrad and undergrad community, and limited interaction between different departments influence even the simplest of activities. Witness the absence of key researchers from non-social science departments when NATO’s director of policy planning lectured in January – despite the obvious relevance to their areas of research.
These problems and more must be transcended if SSEESness is to thrive. But in this limited space, I have only been able to begin revealing the most basic issues that must be addressed by student politicians, by the SSEES administration – and most importantly, by the ordinary students of the school. Crucially, I have not addressed the means to carry out this transition. But I am firmly convinced that with more debate and a little organisation, things can be put right by the efforts of a vanguard of students dedicated to revolutionary change.
Ah. That’s starting to sound a bit Communist. But hey, old stereotypes die hard.