Social statuses of agitprop workers and norms of ideological work during the Great Patriotic War

The article is devoted to the norms and practices of ideological work during the Great Patriotic War. Propaganda and agitation are considered in the context of the social status of the people who performed that work. Sociological optics makes it possible to speak of Soviet ideology not only as a system of ideas, but also as socially conditioned knowledge. The article reveals the ways and techniques for defending social positions through the use of official discourse. An analysis of reflections on the norms of political work helps reveal semantic gaps in the interpretation of political knowledge, determine the tactics and strategies for using ideology in protecting and upholding one’s social positions. During the war, agitprop did not become a monopoly in producing and evaluating political texts. There were regular conflicts between agitprop, Soviet censorship, and regional leaders. Conflicts were resolved through the mediation of the Central Committee Secretariat. The use of political language allowed representatives of the higher nomenclature to defend their positions. The situation was different in the Soviet province, where the social status of agitators and propagandists was marginalized during the war. Ideological workers were forced to solve economic problems. This created a special reporting genre in which the success of the economy was explained by agitation and propaganda. New practices helped strengthen the ideological control of heads of regions over workers. Regional leaders could evaluate the work of propagandists using economic indicators. However, the political language maintained its dominant position. After the war, this made it possible to weaken the autonomy of regional leaders.