Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXX, Public Diplomacy

184. Research Memorandum Prepared in the Office of Research, Directorate for Programs, International Communication Agency¹

M–35–79

Washington, September 19, 1979

SOVIET PERCEPTIONS OF THE U.S.: A VIEW OF SOVIET PUBLIC ATTITUDES

Summary: The average Soviet citizen is inclined to hold positive attitudes toward the American people, even to the point of feeling a special sense of kinship with Americans. But at the same time, he is likely to have predominantly unfavorable perceptions of American society and the American system.

These were among the strongest impressions of Soviet attitudes toward the U.S. received by Americans working at the USICA “Agriculture USA” Exhibit in the Soviet Union. The majority of Soviet visitors at the exhibit showings in six cities indicated by their questions and comments to exhibit personnel that their perceptions of American domestic conditions and foreign policy are shaped primarily by the Soviet mass media and by foreign information sources which are selected and channeled to the public by the Soviet government.

The picture of the U.S. presented by Soviet official sources is one-sidedly negative, with emphasis placed upon the social, political, economic, cultural and psychological ills of American society. Despite fairly widespread skepticism about the accuracy and completeness of the Soviet media’s picture of the U.S., Soviet citizens are indeed influenced by it and have little choice but to base their perceptions upon the information available to them. For the most part, they lack satisfactory alternative sources of information and have no opportunity to obtain information firsthand. It is difficult for them even to recognize the gaps in their knowledge of the U.S. and their misperceptions, and still harder to fill in the gaps and correct erroneous beliefs.

Most members of the Soviet population—skeptics and true believers alike—are interested in the same questions regarding American society: the issues which are constantly discussed by the Soviet media, such as unemployment, high cost of living, expensive higher education and medical care, poverty, crime, violence and pornography. These problems are widely regarded as manifestations of the deeper flaws of American society, which, in the Soviet view, include lack of order; excessive complexity, individualism and competitiveness; unequal distribution of resources; and lack of concern for the needs of the citizenry, which forces the individual to face too many choices and take too many risks.

Many young people are much more open-minded and favorable toward American society than are their elders. It is also noteworthy that residents of the larger, more cosmopolitan cities are more knowledgeable about the U.S. and tend to be more positive in their attitudes than are citizens in provincial towns and rural regions.

The average Soviet citizen demonstrates considerable concern about the state of Soviet-American relations, although—at least publicly—he has little inclination to discuss specific bilateral issues. While he expresses a strong desire for peace, cooperation and increased contacts between the U.S. and USSR, he maintains an equally strong sense of competition with the U.S., this competitiveness manifesting itself in the incessant making of comparisons between the two countries. End Summary.

Introduction

The USICA “Agriculture USA” (AGUSA) Exhibit visited six cities in the Soviet Union—Kiev, Tselinograd, Dushanbe, Kishinev, Moscow and Rostov-on-Don—between March 1978 and June 1979. Specific information on each of the city showings is contained in individual reports available from the Office of Research. This particular paper, however, focuses on insights derived from the overall exhibit experience about the nature of Soviet views of the United States. The substance and tone of exhibit visitors’ questions and comments to the Russian-speaking exhibit guides serve in part as the basis for some general conclusions about the concerns, perceptions and attitudes of average Soviet citizens in regard to the American people and American society.

Several caveats should be stated at the outset. First, there is always considerable danger in relying on firsthand observations, particularly when a cultural gap exists between observer and subject. Second, the constraints of the exhibit setting, which sometimes result in Soviet visitors being less than candid, must be noted. Third, a high level of tension in the atmosphere at AGUSA, due largely to the particular sensitivity of the exhibit theme, was often not conducive to forthright and relaxed conversations between the Americans and the Soviet visitors. Fourth, exhibit audiences are not necessarily representative of the Soviet public at large, and it is often the more activist—rather than the typical—visitor who enters into conversation with the guides. Finally, it should be noted that this report is based on impressions derived from conversations held with a wide variety of Soviet citizens both within and outside the exhibit, and not on a structured interview methodology.

Despite these reservations, the information collected during the AGUSA tour is of considerable value. American researchers’ opportunities for extensive, informal, direct contacts with Soviet citizens are extremely scarce. This was an unusual chance for an American observer to spend fifteen months in the Soviet Union, in daily contact with Soviet people of varied backgrounds. Moreover, it was possible to record the impressions and observations of a diverse group of Americans, who were also directly and constantly interacting with Soviet citizens.

Soviet Perceptions of the American People

There is a widespread tendency among Soviet citizens from all strata of the population to draw a distinction between the American people and the American “system,” which includes, in the Soviet mind, government, big business, the military-industrial complex, and the values and beliefs underlying American political and social institutions as well as those institutions themselves. This distinction between people and system fits in with the official Soviet ideological model of capitalist countries: the masses are good, ordinary working folk who exist apart from and are oppressed by the small class of rich and powerful capitalists and the institutions which serve the latter’s interests. (Many Americans, of course, have a comparable outlook, separating the Russian people, who are perceived as essentially good, from the Soviet state—the regime, institutions and ideology—which is perceived as bad.)

Americans are granted high marks by Soviet people for their industriousness and energy, their efficiency, cleverness and innovativeness. Many Soviets also ascribe an adventurousness, a bold “pioneering spirit” to Americans, which they admire, although some feel this trait in our national character has its dangerous side. The tremendous respect for American technical genius leads sometimes to unrealistic expectations that every American possesses a degree of technical expertise and is fascinated by technology. This notion also sometimes develops into the conviction that “Americans can do anything,” and when faced with evidence that this is not the case, Soviets may react strongly, with bitter disappointment or with scathing contempt for the “fallen giant.”

Many Soviet citizens seem to feel a certain kinship with Americans that they do not feel with other peoples. They are often puzzled and disappointed to find that the average American does not reciprocate this feeling, and does not have the great curiosity about the USSR that his Soviet counterpart has about the U.S. Most Soviet citizens have heard, through the Soviet press, that there is widespread ignorance about the Soviet Union among Americans. This is difficult for most to accept, and if they accept it, even more difficult to explain; is it attributable, they wonder, to Americans’ lack of access to information (as the Soviet press claims), or can it really be that most Americans simply are not very interested in life in the Soviet Union? If they are not interested, why not? While this is viewed by some as distressing evidence of the low esteem in which Americans hold the Soviet people and their culture, others pass it off as an indication of Americans’ general intellectual apathy and self-centeredness.

In large measure, this sense of kinship with Americans felt by so many Soviets may be linked with the prevalent perception that as the citizens of the two “great powers” which dominate the world, we are in a special elite class. Visitors to AGUSA often described a bond between us in these terms. It seems that such comments frequently serve as self-reassuring assertions of Soviet national strength and power, efforts to underscore that the Soviet Union, which long lagged behind the U.S., has now, at least in some respects, achieved equality.

The sense of kinship, though, also appears to spring from the perception of a basic similarity between the American and the Russian character. The shared attributes most often cited by exhibit visitors were simplicity, unpretentiousness, gregariousness and hospitality.

Provincial Attitudes and Negative Stereotypes

A number of the least sophisticated exhibit visitors, generally peasants and workers from the more isolated provincial villages who have little or no contact with foreigners, did not appear to share this feeling of closeness to Americans. They tended to regard Americans as creatures unlike themselves. Many of these people, never having seen “real Americans” before the exhibit, had formed rather romanticized images of how they look and act. Expecting exotic and glamorous beings, some people were disappointed by the decidedly ordinary appearance of the guides and the Americans pictured in exhibit photographs, films and slides. Others, however, were gratified to find Americans much less imposing than they had anticipated.

Certain negative stereotypes of Americans were sometimes reflected in exhibitgoers’ remarks. Americans were seen as coldly calculating (“Americans marry for money, not love”), materialistic, superficial, and insincere (“Americans smile even when they don’t mean it”). A feeling shared by a not insignificant number of people—including both simple workers and sophisticated members of the intelligentsia—is that Americans are decent people, but, particularly in comparison with Russians, they are shallow and lacking in “soul.”

American Society and the American System

In contrast to the mainly positive feelings expressed about the American people, attitudes toward the society and system tend to be unfavorable, reflecting the influence of the heavily negative presentation of America in official Soviet information sources.

It is commonly felt that American society is immensely frightening in its complexity, disorder and competitiveness. The typical Soviet citizen has an exaggerated notion of the instability of American society and the insecurity of the average individual’s life in such a society. He imagines that there is constant crisis, uncertainty, pressure to take risks. Conditioned by the Soviet media to focus on the failures and drawbacks of Western capitalist society, he is apt to see every situation in the worst possible terms. Rather than looking at the challenge or potential gains which are part of risktaking, he concentrates on the psychological tensions and potential losses. He has a tendency to focus on the least fortunate members of American society, and to consider that they represent the norm, rather than an extreme end of the spectrum.

Many Soviets evidently believe that Americans can never truly relax. Life in the West is seen as a constant struggle; the ordinary American must always be on guard against financial ruin, loss of employment, criminal violence. Even if he is lucky enough to avoid disaster, he still must cope with the complicatedness of everyday life. The average Soviet citizen is aware that, compared with Soviet society, American society leaves far more choices to the individual—too many choices, in the Soviet view. While the Soviet citizen may be intrigued, even somewhat attracted by this notion of abundant choices, his overriding response is likely to be one of dismay and fear. Dealing with so many choices and decisions causes confusion, anxiety and fatigue, he feels; it makes life harder. Not only does it put undue strain on the individual, but it is a major factor in the general disorderliness of American society. Comments made by visitors to the exhibit would often reflect these attitudes; people would say that life in the Soviet Union is “simpler” and therefore better and more enjoyable than life in the United States.

To some people, the most threatening aspect of American society is its individualism and competitiveness. Most people tend to have an exaggerated and distorted perception of the manifestations of these values in American life, based on the one-sided information provided by the Soviet media. To be sure, there are individuals who express approval of a system prizing private enterprise, the incentive value of competition, and personal independence in all spheres of life. But more commonly, Soviet people envision the U.S. as a nation of lonely, alienated individuals, unable to rely on any sort of supportive group and forced to compete rather than cooperate with their neighbors and colleagues. In the typical Soviet view, because of the structure of society and its prevailing values and mores, the American citizen is comparatively unprotected by either official collectives (trade unions, youth groups) or unofficial collectives (family, friends). Competition, almost always seen in negative terms, is associated with the obsessive pursuit of money and power widely regarded as characteristic of capitalist society. The conclusion reached by many people seems to be that while the collective ethos might have its drawbacks, the alternative is worse.

The average Soviet citizen is, of course, well aware of the problems in Soviet society, but his knowledge of American society is, at best, patchy and vague. Some people assume, in the absence of information to the contrary, that Americans must cope with the same problems Soviets face (deficits of consumer goods, housing shortages) as well as the problems peculiar to Western society: unemployment, expensive medical care, high rate of inflation. While other people realize that most of the major problems of Soviet society are not prevalent in the U.S., they still lack clear and convincing information about actual conditions outside the Soviet borders and are thus unable to develop a satisfactory understanding of American society. A very large portion of the information made available through official Soviet channels emphasizes the West’s negative features. The Soviet media set the agenda for people’s thinking about the U.S., influencing even those who are skeptical about the veracity of the information sources, and those who would like to view American society in a positive light.

Exposure to Western Information Sources

Direct, albeit limited, exposure to Western information sources often serves further to confuse and mislead Soviet citizens rather than clarify their perceptions of American society. American books, films, photographs and other items made accessible to the public are carefully selected to reinforce the unfavorable image of American society presented in official Soviet sources. The Soviet press, for example, frequently quotes statements from American sources which support whatever point is being made about Western society. These references carry considerable weight. In arguing various points with the guides, exhibit visitors would often exclaim, as if it were the final, irrefutable evidence in their favor, “But your own newspaper, The New York Times, says . . .” It is difficult for individuals who doubt or reject the official Soviet version of a given aspect of American society to deal with foreign source material which supports the Soviet line.

A key problem is that the majority of Soviet citizens fail to grasp the fundamental differences between the Soviet and the American news media. They generally do not realize that in the U.S., “news” consists of information about unusual events, about disasters and problems, controversies and sensations. Many people automatically assume that the American media report on routine and normal occurrences, as the Soviet media purport to do. Curiously, even when individuals are aware of differences between the Soviet and American media, they do not necessarily interpret information from American sources in the light of that knowledge. They may have heard, for instance, that various opinions are expressed in different newspapers, or even within one newspaper, but it does not necessarily follow that when they read a quotation from The New York Times in Pravda, they will recognize that it represents one view, perhaps a minority opinion, and in any case not a universally accepted statement of fact.

As with the press, when Soviets view American films such as White Line Fever and The Front, they often assume that normal everyday American reality is being depicted. In fact, some people conclude that American society may actually be worse than these films dare show; they are extrapolating from their own experience with Soviet films, where some social problems may be treated, but not revealed to be as serious, profound or widespread as they are in reality.

Even American information sources designed for a Soviet audience may sometimes contribute to the confusion, due to the Soviet people’s unfamiliarity with American ways of presenting information and with the whole context of American society. For example, a journalist’s low-key, even-handed treatment of a controversial issue (an effective approach for an American audience) may be interpreted by Soviet readers as a sign of the weakness of the journalist’s actual position on the issue. A foreign radio broadcast on the current developments of a particular issue may be poorly understood by Soviet listeners because they lack the background information essential for comprehension.

Subjects of Concern

Most of the exhibit visitors’ questions and comments could be classified into three categories: ordinary daily life in America; American perceptions of and attitudes toward the Soviet Union; and problems in American society. The third category was the largest, and included questions on the social, political, economic, cultural and psychological ills of American society: the high cost of living, expensive medical care and education, unemployment, crime, violence, poverty, and so on. These issues, constantly stressed by the Soviet media, were foremost in many people’s minds, as were the deeper, underlying problems manifested in these particular issues: exploitation of the weak, inequality, obsessive materialism, lack of national and individual goals, general malaise, self-centeredness. But by no means did everyone who asked about these problems believe they truly exist as described in Soviet sources. The attitudes held by questioners varied, and were often not even identifiable. Some people were simply curious to hear how an American would handle such questions. Others did appear to have a highly negative picture of America, and they asked their questions with the intent of exposing the evils of the West, and discomfiting and discrediting the guides. Still others wanted direct confirmation from the guides of information they had already obtained, perhaps from Voice of America, which contradicted the official Soviet version of one or another aspect of American reality. Whatever the individual’s attitude, however, it is noteworthy that the same issues—unemployment, unequal access to material goods, high cost and limited availability of medical care and education, etc.—were etched in people’s minds; that is what they first thought of in connection with the United States.

In view of the Soviet news media’s considerable attention to foreign affairs, including Soviet-American relations, it is interesting that exhibit visitors rarely initiated conversations on specific current international issues, such as SALT. Although one suspects that more candid and detailed discussion of such topics occurs in private, at the exhibit people usually confined themselves to expressing the familiar platitudes (which the guides heard dozens of times each day) about the need for peace, cooperation and increased contacts between our two countries.

When foreign policy issues did come up, visitors seemed primarily interested in hearing the guides’ personal opinions or explanations of the official American government position. Visitors’ own comments, when expressed at all, tended to follow the official Soviet line. The American role in international affairs was criticized as “aggressive” and “imperialistic,” while the Soviet Union was seen as supporting peace-loving and progressive peoples everywhere. There seemed to be considerable feeling that the American people are “misled” on international issues by “certain circles” within the U.S., or by outside powers. Regarding American-Chinese relations and how they affect the Soviet Union—the issue of greatest concern to visitors—many expressed fears that the U.S. is lining up with China against the USSR; it was felt that Americans are naive to trust the Chinese, who, according to Soviet predictions, will betray America just as they betrayed their erstwhile friend, the Soviet Union.

Visitors were greatly concerned about American perceptions of a “Soviet military threat” and often repeated their hopes that “certain circles” in the U.S. would not use the excuse of a “mythical Soviet threat” to justify an attack on the Soviet Union.

The Age Factor

There is naturally more variety in Soviet people’s views of the U.S. than any general summary of prevalent attitudes might suggest. A particularly noticeable difference in attitudes exists between members of the “younger generation” (born post-war), and their elders.

On the whole, young people take a more positive view of the U.S., are more accurately and broadly informed in some areas, and seem more open to information coming from American and other non-Soviet sources. Young Komsomol agitators were in evidence in each city visited by the exhibit, but they were far outnumbered by the friendly, fascinated young people who gathered around the guides and made repeated visits to the exhibit. American values and practices which are regarded with fear or disapproval by older Soviets are often embraced enthusiastically by members of the younger generation. The independence of American youth—living apart from parents after high school, making their own decisions on education, military service, work—appeals to many Soviet young people, who chafe against the physical and psychological constraints of Soviet society. Those under 35 tend to value security and stability less than do their elders, for whom the war and its accompanying dislocation are vivid memories.

Many Soviet young people have a distinct tendency to idealize American life, and in some cases their perceptions are as vague, one-sided and unrealistic in one direction as their parents’ ideas are in the other. It is the interpretation of information, rather than what and how much information they possess, that seems most to distinguish the generations.

Ethnic and Religious Factors

Predictably, certain ethnic and religious groups within the Soviet population are inclined to have highly positive feelings and perceptions about the U.S. In general, those groups which feel alienated from the Soviet regime and Soviet society are greatly attracted to the United States. Among exhibit visitors, the best represented of these groups were the Baptists (and believers from some other Christian sects), Jews, ethnic Germans, Balts, Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians from the Western Ukraine.

Members of such groups generally put more energy into obtaining information from outside sources, and often have more and better information about American life, although this is not necessarily the case. (Jewish citizens are frequently the most knowledgeable, thanks in part to information received from friends and relatives who have emigrated.) Many of them think a good deal about life outside the Soviet Union and discuss it extensively among themselves. Nonetheless, they often have difficulty comprehending many of the same aspects of American life which pose difficulties for other Soviets.

Geographic and Socioeconomic Factors

The level of knowledge about America is, understandably, highest in large metropolitan cities such as Moscow and Kiev, where the population has the most contact with foreigners, access to a variety of Soviet and foreign information sources, and includes a concentration of highly educated, sophisticated individuals. The residents of the most isolated and undeveloped areas (Tselinograd, rural Moldavia) are much less well informed, but even these areas appear to have their local intelligentsia—a small community of people who are fairly knowledgeable about the West and astute in interpreting Soviet reportage of the outside world. (Many of these people were educated or spent time working in the major cities.)

Each geographic area visited by the exhibit had its own particular character, and observers noted the predominance of certain kinds of attitudes in each area. In Rostov, for example, people were inclined to be fiercely patriotic and thus critical of the U.S.; they often expressed strong views on issues but did not usually support those views with specific facts. Rostov struck the American exhibit staff as a typical blue collar, working class, rough and tumble town. Its character was formed by a number of factors, among them the Cossack historical and folk traditions of the region, Rostov’s role as an important river port, and the presence of the enormous Rostsel’mash farm machinery plant, which employs a huge number of people and wields considerable influence in many spheres of local life. Extent and type of education, profession, and income level do have an influence on individual perceptions and attitudes, but on the basis of observations in the exhibit setting, it would be impossible to venture any analysis of these factors. Most evident, rather, were the differences between, on the one hand, the urban, well-educated, professional people of the several more cosmopolitan cities, and, on the other, the residents of provincial cities and villages, be they peasants, workers, specialists or government officials. Provincial citizens were more accepting of official Soviet information sources, and less open to new and conflicting information. They were inclined to express less skepticism than their fellow citizens in Kiev and Moscow. They were also apt to have more trouble with concepts which are unfamiliar and confusing to any Soviet citizen, such as the interactions of the private and public sectors in American society or the nature of American individualism.

Conclusion

The average Soviet citizen bases most of his perceptions of the U.S. on the information presented by the official Soviet mass media and the foreign materials (literary works, films, etc.) chosen by the regime for distribution within the country. Some information from outside sources is received through unofficial channels, but the large majority of citizens rely primarily or exclusively on Soviet or Soviet-approved sources.

Most citizens do not accept unquestioningly and wholeheartedly what the Soviet media tell them; with some exceptions, most realize that only selected information is made available, and therefore their perceptions of American society are likely to be somewhat off the mark. At the same time, they recognize that the information provided them is not sheer falsification and exaggeration. The question is: How much and exactly what can be believed? The average citizen, with little access to alternative information sources and no opportunity to make firsthand observations, has no satisfactory way to develop and evaluate his information. The best way, if one is interested, energetic and daring enough, is to seek out as many sources of information as possible and compare them all. A few people do precisely that.

Still, while information obtained from foreign sources such as VOA is carefully weighed and pondered, it is often neither fully accepted, nor well understood. In cases where information thus obtained conflicts with old familiar images, people often find it easier and more comfortable to retain the old images. Moreover, information from outside may not correct misperceptions or fill in blank spots because of the Soviet citizen’s inability to put the information in proper context or because of problems with the methods used in communicating. Reconciling conflicting information is, of course, a serious problem. Observers at AGUSA noted, as have others, that many Soviets often appear able to hold what to us seem glaringly conflicting perceptions and attitudes without feeling any apparent need to reconcile them.

Judging from visitors’ questions and comments at the exhibit, as well as other evidence, the average Soviet citizen has a picture of the United States which is incomplete, distorted and confused. While inclined to think favorably of the American people, he tends to view American society in a predominantly negative light, perceiving it as frighteningly disorderly, complex, unjust and unstable.

Although attitudes toward the U.S. vary considerably, depending in part upon the individual’s age, place of residence and background, most people—whatever their attitudes—are greatly curious about the problems of American society which are constantly spotlighted by the Soviet media. Soviet portrayals of the extremes of poverty and deprivation in America, on the one hand, and wealth and self-indulgence on the other, appear to make a particularly strong impression upon people.

The average Soviet citizen is, at least in public, critical of American foreign policy. Generally reluctant to discuss international issues in concrete terms, he tends to follow the official line if pressed to express an opinion. He is not hesitant, however, to voice a strong desire for a peaceful and friendly relationship between the U.S. and USSR. This desire for peace and friendship coexists with a sharp sense of competition with the U.S., as exemplified in exhibit visitors’ ceaseless drawing of comparisons between the two societies in every area imaginable.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Office of Research and Media Reaction, Research Memoranda, 1963–1999, Entry P–64, Box 36, M–53–79. No classification marking. Prepared by Jocelyn Greene (PGM/REU).