In this compendium, Elizabeth White chronicles the transformation of Russian perspectives on childhood and children's experiences from the eighteenth to the twenty-first century. By reviewing substantial research on this topic, White offers an overview of the experiences of children and how the various Russian governments used the concept of childhood both as a vehicle for developing and symbolizing social values. Russian and Soviet policies surrounding childhood reflect society's and the state's aspirations, while the lived experiences expose deficiencies including extreme poverty, displacement, homelessness, and hunger, deficiencies that varied depending on the background of any given child. Previous studies are woven and incorporated to create a fluid narrative of Russia's hopes for and realities of children, with glimpses at the education system and the treatment of families over three centuries.

In her introduction, White elaborates on Philippe Aries’ (1965) scholarship on childhood and reviews research on how children and their treatment are intertwined with the concept of progress throughout the history of Europe. Following the recognition of childhood as a unique and defined time of life, Russia viewed and treated childhood in various ways, from “the future of Russia” to a contemporary view of children as “a source of wealth” (147).

Russia's unique treatment of children is formulated in the ensuing chapters with the introduction of vospitanie (upbringing). This culturally salient term connotes the way in which values are transmitted and developed in a child, indeed, the entire enculturation process. Unfortunately, this powerful concept is not given a more elaborate definition until the one offered by the Deputy Minister for Education and Science, Veniamin Kaganov, in 2016, described in White's Chapter 7, “Postscript: Childhood in the modern Russian Federation.” Kaganov highlights the process of vospitanie as involving “socialization of the pupil on the foundation of socio-cultural, spiritual and moral values and socially accepted rules and norms of behavior in the interests of the individual, the family, society and the state” (Kaganov, 148). To what extent the family or a state school is responsible for vospitanie is outlined by White as a significant element for a “happy childhood.” White writes: “As noted throughout this book, one of the most important stories that the Soviet state told about itself to its own citizens and the world was that it was providing children with a uniquely ‘happy childhood,’ a childhood that was far superior to that offered in capitalist states” (164). White goes on to state that there is much scholarship on Russian and Soviet childhood contesting the “happy childhood” image. Indeed, she argues, many children under the Soviet regime were denied a childhood altogether. Childhood was a privilege available to few (164).

White discusses the absence of childhood, the suffering and victimization of many children throughout Russian history. The periods of childhood victimization include pre- and post-revolution assaults on childhood, including during the revolution, dekulakization, and as victims of Stalin's Terror and child deportations from the 1930s to the 1950s. Turbulent times lead to turbulent childhoods, with many children finding themselves homeless and orphaned. It is the last category, the orphaned, that could use an added chapter. White elaborates on the variations of childhood throughout her book, depending on ethnicity, income, and the push to separate children from families characterized by alcoholism and neglect, a major source of orphanhood. While the mention of bezprizornie/bezprizornost΄ (street or homeless children, 40) runs throughout her book, insight into the lived experiences of such children is less developed. White alludes to scholarship on the topic up through Stalin's time, but leaves out research on orphans’ experiences post-Stalin. Literature on the subject is likely of interest to the readership. Discussion of adoption and international adoption restrictions in White's postscript is deserving of a more complex rendering.

Overall White offers a concise and valuable survey of the historical Russian concept of childhood. From childhood as a happy and carefree time, to a time of social agency and power, to an experience of victimization and oppression, Russian childhood is depicted as a significant element of the country's perception and of the reality of social progress or decline. White's chronicling presents a springboard for more research on the lived experiences of children and variations of childhood today both in Russia and world-wide.