American Contributions to the 14th International Congress of Slavists. Ohrid 2008

Cosmopolitanism and/or Nationalism? When Contemporary Russian

David M. Bethea, ed. American Contributions to the 14th International Congress of Slavists , Ohrid, September 2008. Vol. 2: Literature. Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 233–43. Cosmopolitanism and/or Nationalism? When Contemporary Russian Émigré Literature Returns Home Lisa Ryoko Wakamiya Contemporary Russian culture reflects elements of both cosmopolitanism and nationalism , a condition that has become especially evident in the recent history of Russian literature. The past 15 years have seen the growth of diverse cosmopolitanisms in Russia.1 These developments, however, have caused some to argue for a renewed primacy of the nation in the cultural discourse of the post-Soviet era. The same period has seen many writers of the “Third Wave” of emigration, who were exiled or emigrated in the 1970s and 1980s, return to Russia. The publication of their work in Russia , and in some cases, their physical return, coincided with Russia’s transition from Soviet structures to post-Soviet ones and contributes to the confrontation and mediation between the cosmopolitan and the national. In their essay “Four Cosmopolitan Moments,” Robert Fine and Robin Cohen observe that “while cosmopolitanism has many virtues it is unlikely to provide an allembracing solution or a total antidote to problems of extreme nationalism, racism, ethnic conflict and religious fundamentalism” (p. 137). A sustained hope in its potential , however, is offered in many examples of contemporary Russian writing by former exiles. The field of cosmopolitan studies looks to cosmopolitanism as a call to social action. The titles of some of its most prominent studies—Cosmopolitics, edited by Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins (1998) and Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers by Kwame Anthony Appiah (2006)—evince the social agenda at the center of their projects. In discussing works of fiction by contemporary Russian writers who have taken up the call to cosmopolitan social commitment, I will demonstrate how their agendas, and the roles the writer and reader are to fulfill in them, are represented in their writing. 1 Debates concerning recent concepts of cosmopolitanism are characterized by their multidisciplinarity and variety. See Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice (eds. Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen 2002), Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers by Kwame Anthony Appiah (2006), Cosmopolitics (eds. Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins, 1998), Debating Cosmopoltiics (ed. Daniele Archibugi, 2003), and Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places by Ulf Hannerz (1996) for a sample of approaches to defining cosmopolitanism. 234 LISA RYOKO WAKAMIYA I focus on writing by former exiles because many, though not all, of its practitioners use representations of exile and return and their lived experiences to define and fulfill cosmopolitan cultural agendas. Because these writers belong to a generation that matured under Soviet rule, it may be argued that they have always been obligated to put social agendas into writing and practice. In this argument, to declare that writers of this generation are committed to certain social ideals may be, on the one hand, to state something so apparent as to be banal; on the other hand, it may seem to reiterate official Soviet dictums about the social responsibility of the writer, dictums that many of these very writers fought to challenge. In the post-Soviet period, however, when such responsibility is neither obligatory nor commonplace among practicing writers, narratives that declare an ethical commitment to cosmopolitan ideals on the part of the writer and encourage the same on the part of the reader deserve notice. Critics have noted the prevalence of nationalist discourses in popular writing and the number of publishing venues that support this work for commercial or ideological reasons.2 With this study, I argue that writers have also noted these developments and are using their art to respond. The term “cosmopolitan” has acquired many meanings from its initial uses in antiquity to the present day.3 In the Soviet period, “cosmopolitanism” was defined as a “reactionary bourgeois ideology” which urged “the rejection of national traditions and cultures and patriotism” (Modrzhinskaia 1973: 262) and was used to designate individuals suspected of anti-Soviet allegiances and “national nihilism.” Under the Soviet regime, the accusation of “rootless” cosmopolitanism was aimed toward Jews, who were blamed for undermining Russian national values. Cosmopolitanism was also associated with Western imperialism, whose notions of world citizenship challenged Soviet ideals of proletarian internationalism. In such an environment, when cosmopolitanism was not only a term of invective but also a legal indictment, few Russians would have willingly identified themselves as such. In the period of the “Thaw,” however, members of unofficial artistic circles and supporters...