I've read general literature about the man himself but I don't think those are useful methods of indicating what society at large thinks. My question specifically concerns what the historians on this board feel is the view Western Society and even Eastern Society take on Khrushchev and his role in De-Stalinization after Stalin's death. It appears that Khrushchev was presented with an opportunity that few people in the whole of history experience when Stalin died.
Considering the power structure Stalin had established during his time as the General Secretary of the Central Committee I find it greatly admirable that he didn't continue with the status quo, something that is attributed to NKVD chair Lavrentiy Beria. As is history, Khrushchev began the process of reforms we know today as De-Stalinization, even blatantly criticizing Stalin in his speech at the 20th Party Congress in 1956.
Does Khrushchev get a lot of credit for this in the current times? From what I've heard in the US it seems like Khrushchev is only mentioned when the Cuban Missile Crisis comes up, and anything said about him is disparaging. Although Khrushchev was known to denounce and essentially seal the fate of different political rivals in his career, I feel like the decisions he made in De-Stalinization reflect his true personality and give an insight to his original ideas on Socialism/Communism, before he ascended to significant positions of authority. Something I admire him for.
I would say the current 'orthodox' position on Khrushchev's De-Stalinisation was a mixture of genuine 'liberal' inclinations on Khrushchev's part, with a hefty dose of internal power politics. The exactly 'balance' between these two points will vary from historian to historian.
So on the internal politics side we have the point that Khrushchev tended to time his moves against Stalin's legacy with issues he was having with other Politburo members. Guys like Molotov, Malenkov (and of course Beria, who Khrushchev had displaced) could be criticised by proxy when Khrushchev denounced Stalin's record in certain areas. Khrushchev could also use the appearance of a more liberal style in other ways, for example in order to enhance 'transparency' etc. Khrushchev would bring in lower ranked party members into some meetings as observers - which had the benefit of greatly limiting the options of Khrushchev's opponents on certain topics.
That being said Khrushchev probably wasn't being totally cynical in his actions. For example his release of prisoners in the Gulag probably didn't have any great 'material benefit' for Khrushchev, but he probably recognised that keeping that many people in labour camps was extreme. Khrushchev's courting of more liberal art circles and so forth seems to have been heartfelt, and similarly his at times angry rejection of them reflects his own complicated, at times seemingly contradictory, world view.
I find it greatly admirable that he didn't continue with the status quo, something that is attributed to NKVD chair Lavrentiy Beria.
This isn't quite right. Firstly some of Beria's policy initiatives prior to his ouster were themselves more 'liberal' than the norm of the time and amounted to fairly significant reforms. For example Beria had given indications he wanted to end the Cold War and allow a reunified Germany. From memory he had also given indications that he wasn't in favour of the Soviet form of command economy. Certainly while Beria was remembered as an arch Stalinist, far from one of the good guys etc. he probably wasn't going to continue down the same path as Stalin after 1953 either.
Similarly I would question just how much Khrushchev really differed from Stalin's leadership style. Both were highly interventionist in their political actions. So for example Stalin would involve himself in disputes that he really didn't have much to do with (like linguistics or aircraft production), while Khrushchev would actively campaign for the farming of corn. Ultimately Khrushchev was removed by his collegues because he didn't really allow the Politburo to shape his policies at all - he seemingly wanted to run his own show. Even some of the proposed/implemented structural reforms of the political system Khrushchev initiated were probably motivated in part as a means of breaking up opposing power blocks. For example his proposed splitting of the party between 'industrial' and 'agricultural' wings would have caused administrative chaos, but would have diluted the power of some of Khrushchev's enemies.
For a modern view of Khrushchev I would recommend William Taubman's "Khrushchev: The Man, His Era". It is quite comprehensive, with a lot of space devoted to Khrushchev's pre GenSec and subsequent leadership period.