Stalinka Revisited
Dennis Ioffe
sinkell at mail.ru
Wed Oct 19 20:44:07 UTC 2005
Just a very quick response to Professors' Rancour-Laferriere - Mark Lipovetsky polemics,
Of course we, those who did not attend in person the lecture itself are naturally not in a perfect position to undertake any seriously articulated judgment,
but just to comment on Professor Rancour-Laferriere's remark that:
> > This sociopath, Procurator General Andrei Vyshinsky
> > (1883-1954), sent countless human beings to their deaths with his
> > "discursive practices." Real people died real deaths because of him. I
> > doubt that any real people died real deaths as a result of, say, the
> > "shows" put on by Vladimir Mayakovsky (excluding his suicide).
My comment would be extremely brief: please recollect such Mayakovsky's texts as LEVYI MARSH" - what is the immediate content of it? If not a straight call to some sort of 'natural' physical violence vashe slovo tovarich mauzer", then what is such a call?
Let us also not forget Mayakovsky's friend-circle (Agranov and Co). Is there any difference between Agranov (remember the Gumilev's affair and his sinister role in it) and Vyshinsky?
I strongly believe that Mayakovsky's oeuvre has very much to do with the (Soviet) discourse of violence" and, therefore, Vyshinsky's notorious speeches may seem not at all irrelevant here.
Daniil Kharms, however, is a completely different story', which should be somehow mildly separated from the topic of Soviet violence", may be on the grounds that the OBERIU-fellows were not really a definite part of Soviet poetry par excellence' (in a sense that Mayakovsky was).
Kind regards to the list,
--
Dennis Ioffe
Doctoral Fellow
University of Amsterdam
Slavic Seminaruim
Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Leiderman <Mark.Leiderman at COLORADO.EDU>
To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:05:01 -0600
Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] Stalinka Revisited
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> First of all, I apologize for an erroneous posting of a private letter on the
> SEELANG.
>
> Responidng to Professor Rancour-Laffarriere's post, I'd like to clarify my
> position not for self-defence but for the sake of broader and really important
> issues touched in this discussion. Professor Rancour-Laffariere refers to my
> answer to a polemically shaped question "Do we need Vyshinsky to analyze
> Kharms?" All I said was the following: as long as we assume that a writer is
> working with a discourse (playing with it, problematizing or undermining it),
> we have to consider others who participate in a more primary fashion in the
> shaping of the discourse. Thus, speaking about discourses of violence in
> Soviet culture, one needs to take into consideration political figures such
> as, say, Vyshinsky, who actively participated in the shaping of this discourse
> verbally and practically. Without this it would be hard to understand the
> approach to violence performed by Soviet writers and, especially, by Soviet
> modernists. Having said that I certainly didn't mean that Kharms and
> Mayakovsky should be perceived in the same way as Vyshinsky or Ezhov.
>
> Furthermore, in my talk at UC Berkeley I was trying to show how Babel or
> Kharms deconstructed the Soviet rhetorics of violence that served as a
> spiritual foundation for the terror. They do this in very different manners
> neither of which can be reduced to a simple moral lesson, yet, the term
> deconstruction seems to describe their treatment of discourses of violence
> better than any other. How unfortunate it is that Professor Rancour-
> Laferriere did not find this (the largest) part of my lecture convincing. I
> wish he had asked me about it at the time so that I could have clarified my
> position on this point.
>
> As to more general, theoretical or ethical, issues addressed by Professor
> Rancour-Laferriere, theoretical approach I used, only partially belongs to
> postmodernism. It goes back not only to Derrida and Foucault, but also to the
> thinkers that cannot be qualified as postmodernists: Walter Benjamin
> ( Critique of Violence ) and Rene Girard (especially, Violence and the
> Sacred , as Rima Salys already pointed out). As to my ethical perspective on
> Soviet culture, it is indeed very close to that eloquently formulated by Eliot
> Borenstein. Professor Rancour-Laffarriere asks if is it possible to continue
> the development of postmodernist theorizing about Russia without realistic
> regard for the massive traumatization and massive killings of human beings in
> Russia during the twentieth century. I believe that to investigate violence,
> its inner logic, its connections with the sacred, its cultural roots and
> justification, exactly means taking regard for the massive traumatization and
> massive killings. Otherwise, we deal with Soviet culture as if Russian/Soviet
> historical catastrophe was caused by an invasion of monsters and sociopaths
> that came from nowhere.
>
> However, I think that theoretical discrepancies between Professor Rancour-
> Laffarriere and those who, like me, are poisoned by postmodernist
> theorizing , is more of a faith-based nature. I do not believe in clear-cut
> oppositions in general and especially in those that were cultivated in late
> soviet intelligentsia s circles (Soviet power vs. modernist culture, communist
> terror vs. independent art, executioners vs. victims). Professor Rancour-
> Laffarriere apparently still finds these dichotomies valid. Perhaps, this is
> why for me postmodernist theorizing is a tool allowing to find new meanings in
> classical (or not so classical) texts of the Soviet period, and for my
> opponent it is something that can (or should?) be restricted on moral
> grounds.
>
> As we all know, this kind of disagreement rarely leads to consensus; however,
> there is nothing more productive for culture than religious debates. In my
> view, an open theoretical discussion will be very healthy for our field.
>
> Yet, this suggestion can be considered a postmodernist provocation too.
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Daniel Rancour-Laferriere <darancourlaferriere at COMCAST.NET>:
>
> > 17 Oct. 05
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> > This afternoon at UC Berkeley I attended a lecture by Prof. Mark
> > Lipovetsky of the University of Colorado, Boulder, on the topic
> > "Strategies of Violence in Soviet Culture: Mythical and Divine." I will
> > not attempt to summarize the contents of this interesting scholarly
> > lecture, which was delivered with considerable style and verve. As can
> > be guessed from the title, however, the topic had the potential to
> > provoke some emotional distress in listeners, especially those listeners
> > among the thirty or so people in the room who had survived Soviet
> > violence (or who were close to said survivors, or who were just very
> > involved in the study of violence in Soviet Russia).
> >
> > After the lecture some questions came up which, although politely
> > formulated, indicated that some emotional distress had in fact been
> > provoked - for example, "are you not perhaps aestheticizing violence?"
> > This was apropos of Lipovetsky's talk of "the discourse of violence" in
> > certain literary works by Babel, Kharms, Zamiatin, and others, and his
> > references to theories of discourse promoted by postmodernist
> > theoreticians such as Derrida and Foucault. What came next however, was
> > an assertion that we can view the "discursive practices" of Vyshinsky on
> > the same level as those of Mayakovsky, Babel, Zoshchenko....
> >
> > Say what? That's right, Vyshinsky's performances at the show trials are
> > in the same discursive field with the performances of Mayakovsky,
> > Zoshchenko, etc. This sociopath, Procurator General Andrei Vyshinsky
> > (1883-1954), sent countless human beings to their deaths with his
> > "discursive practices." Real people died real deaths because of him. I
> > doubt that any real people died real deaths as a result of, say, the
> > "shows" put on by Vladimir Mayakovsky (excluding his suicide).
> >
> > To place Vyshinsky and other Soviet political monsters like Stalin
> > (remember Groys) in the same category with Babel, Zoshchenko,
> > Mayakovsky, Zamyatin - is what philosophers would call a category
> > error. Or, if that seems an insufficient explanation, consider this
> > analogy: to conflate the "discursive practices" of Vyshinsky and
> > Mayakovsky is like confusing a snuff film with a film acted by
> > professional actors.
> >
> > Yes, it's the "Stalinka" problem all over again: foregrounding of the
> > properties of discourse at the expense of human feelings (and by the
> > way, the builders of that web site have STILL not offered us a
> > justification for its name).
> >
> > A more general topic for potentially productive discussion on SEELANGS:
> > is it possible to continue the development of postmodernist theorizing
> > about Russia without realistic regard for the massive traumatization and
> > massive killings of human beings in Russia during the twentieth
> > century? I wish some of the postmodernist theoreticians on this list
> > would stop lurking, would come out and explain to us old-fashioned
> > philologists (and psychoanalysts) why postmodernist theorizing should be
> > retained. I am willing to change my mind if there are some interesting
> > and convincing arguments put forth.
> >
> > Best regards to the list,
> >
> > Daniel Rancour-Laferriere
> > Emeritus Professor of Russian
> > UC Davis
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
> > options, and more. Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
> > http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Mark Lipovetsky [Leiderman]
> Associate Professor of Russian Studies and Comparative Literature,
> Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures,
> CU-Boulder, UCB 276, Boulder CO 80309
> Fax: (303)492-5376
> Tel: 303-492-7957
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
> options, and more. Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
> http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
options, and more. Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the SEELANG
mailing list