-
Notes
- Northwestern University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
125 Notes INTRODUCTION The chapter epigraph is from Yury Olesha, Envy, in The Portable TwentiethCentury Russian Reader (New York: Penguin, 1985), 314. 1. For a discussion of the debate concerning Soviet literary heroes in this period see Robert A. Maguire, “Literary Conflicts in the 1920s,” Survey: A Journal of East and West Studies 18, no. 1 (Winter 1972): 98–127. 2. Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, trans. Rose Strunsky (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2005), 207. 3. For example, see Geoffrey Hosking, Beyond Socialist Realism: Soviet Fiction Since “Ivan Denisovich” (London: Granada, 1980), 13–15; and Katerina Clark, The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 46–89. Marcia Morris places the socialist realist hero in a long line of Russian ascetic heroes, traced back to the Kievan saints’ lives but heavily influenced by Nikolay Chernyshevsky’s What Is to Be Done? (Marcia A. Morris, Saints and Revolutionaries: The Ascetic Hero in Russian Literature [New York: State University of New York Press, 1993]). 4. For a representative sampling of such studies, see Rufus W. Mathewson Jr., The Positive Hero in Russian Literature, 2nd ed. (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1975); Clark, The Soviet Novel; and Morris, Saints and Revolutionaries . 5. In Russian, the word for “spontaneity” (stikhiinost’) might better be translated as “elementalness,” since it derives from the word for the “elements” (stikhiia). It is a primitive force that hearkens back to the basic elements of ancient Greek scientific thought: earth, wind, fire, and water. Although the term is often associated with Lenin, Leopold Haimson views it as informing the thought of the Russian intelligentsia throughout the nineteenth century; for example, in the 1860s Mikhail Bakunin viewed the Russian peasant as the elemental cleansing force that would scour away ancient, decaying civilizations. (Leopold Haimson , “Lenin’s Revolutionary Career Revisited: Some Observations on Recent Discussions,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5, no. 1 [Winter 2004]: 57.) 126 Notes to Pages 5–6 6. Vladimir Il’ich Lenin, What Is to Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement, in The Lenin Anthology (New York: W.W. Norton, 1975), 29. 7. In her seminal book The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual (1981), Katerina Clark calls the spontaneity-consciousness paradigm “one of the key binary oppositions in Russian culture” and places it as central to the “master plot” of the socialist realist novel, in which the Soviet hero moves from “a state of relative ‘spontaneity’ to a higher degree of ‘consciousness,’ which he attains by some individual revolution” (Clark, The Soviet Novel, 20, 15, 16). 8. In February 2001 a conference was held in Essen, Germany, on the centennial of What Is to Be Done? (Lars T. Lih, “How a Founding Document Was Found, or One Hundred Years of Lenin’s What Is to Be Done?” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 4, no. 1 [Winter 2003]: 5). Anna Krylova was one of the participants, and, two years later, a special issue of Slavic Review was devoted to Krylova’s article on instinct and two responses to the article by Igal Halfin and Reginald Zelnik. 9. Lih, “How a Founding Document Was Found,” 27. 10. Anna Krylova, “Beyond the Spontaneity-Consciousness Paradigm: ‘Class Instinct’ as a Promising Category of Historical Analysis,” Slavic Review 62, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 2. Krylova focuses on the term “instinct,” which she has revealed to be prominent in Bolshevik discourse of the first thirty years of the twentieth century; she argues that this term arose after the 1905 uprisings, when Bolsheviks needed to explain how workers who had not yet achieved the consciousness necessary for revolution nevertheless took positive steps in that direction. Bolsheviks found an explanation in “class instinct” (klassovyi instinkt, klassovoe chut’e) or “revolutionary instinct” (revoliutsionnyi instinkt); workers “felt” (pochuvstvovali) what would further the movement to Communism before they consciously understood where they were headed. Therefore, Krylova suggests that feeling was as crucial as thought to the Bolshevik concept of the New Person, and she demonstrates the pervasive use of instinct in writings from the major figures of the Bolshevik movement, Anatoly Lunacharsky, Aleksandra Kollontai, Aleksandr Bogdanov, Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin (Krylova, 16–23). Reginald E. Zelnik, although agreeing with Krylova, stresses that the concept of instinct should be seen not to replace the spontaneity-consciousness paradigm but rather to “enrich” it (Reginald E. Zelnik, “A Paradigm Lost? Response to Anna Krylova,” Slavic Review 62, no. 1 [Spring 2003]: 33). Igal Halfin notes that the Bolsheviks...