Raznoe

[Daniel Rancour-Laferriere]

20 Oct. 05

Dear Colleagues,
I see there are some messages which I have not yet responded to.

Dennis Ioffe wrote:

> 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.
>

Agreed - Mayakovsky's oeuvre has much to do with the Soviet discourse of 
violence, and is even an integral part of it.  Some of his discourse 
might in English even be called "fight'n words" or "hate speech."  But 
do you have evidence that his words actually resulted in anyone's 
deaths?  Well, perhaps because of their propagandistic value, they 
"facilitated" a certain number of deaths down the road of time.  But 
similar (or arguably similar) discourse by Vyshinsky or Ezhov or Stalin 
resulted in murder on a mass scale.  When Stalin put his signature on a 
list of prisoners, their brains were blown out.  When Mayakovsky put his 
signature on a sequence of verses, people experienced aesthetic 
pleasure.  Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?  There is no way 
to avoid making moral assumptions and evaluations when studying Soviet 
discourse of violence.

Genevra Gerhart wrote:

>This sort of discussion (postmodernism et al.) has set decent literary
>criticism back a good fifty years. We wander in fogs of non-meaning. 
>

Very possibly true, but I sure would like to hear some specifics.

Francoise Rosset wrote:

>The core belief of all Christianity is the great 
>redemptive myth of the god-human sacrificed to expiate
>the sins of the entire community, and not wholly self-
>sacrificed, by the way; treachery and violence are an 
>integral part of that myth. This ritual is deliberately 
>re-enacted at every single catholic mass that includes 
>communion, with an explicit rhetoric of death (blood 
>and body for starters), and it results in the eating 
>of the sacrifice (eating the gods...) to foster unity 
>or "communion." 
>

This is a huge claim that many religious thinkers would dispute, but I 
happen to agree with it.  Lev Tolstoy rejected the idea of redemption 
categorically in _What I Believe_ (1884), for example, but he continued 
to consider himself a true Christian.  As for the idea that "every 
single Catholic mass that includes communion" re-enacts Christ's 
(supposed) sacrifice, there is really a wide range of opinions on this 
among the theologians.  I recommend the fine study by the Jesuit priest 
Francis Clark, _Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation_ (Newman 
Press, 1960).  For a magisterial study by a very liberal Catholic 
theologian, see Hans Kung's _Christianity: Essence, History, and Future_ 
(Continuum, 2004).  My own interpretation of Christ's (supposed) 
sacrifice is offered in "The Moral Masochism at the Heart of 
Christianity: Evidence from Russian Orthodox Iconography and Icon 
Veneration," _Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society_ (8 
[2003], 12-22).  Finally, Girard fans, have a look at: Eugene Webb, 
"Girard, Sacrifice, and Religious Symbolism," _Journal of European 
Psychoanalysis_ (14 [2002], 59-79).  There is also a "Conversation with 
Girard" recorded in that issue of JEP.

Francoise Rosset also wrote

>To dislike postmodernist theory or any other discourse and disagree with it, 
>even vehemently, is one thing -- a good thing, as it furthers debate.
>To question the right to exist of any scholarly discourse, dismiss the moral 
>integrity of its writers, and demand a justification based on some easily 
>manipulated notion of "human feelings" (again with the justifying) -- is not.
>

I agree completely with the first sentence.  The second sentence 
misrepresents me and certain other SEELANGERS.  I'll speak just for 
myself.  I do not recall questioning the right to exist of any scholarly 
discourse.  In fact I am grateful for the existence of Mark Lipovetsky's 
discourse, for it gave me the opportunity to bring up all kinds of 
issues which many fellow-scholars subsequently (publically and 
privately) responded to.  I believe, however, that postmodernist 
scholars of Soviet violence (and of the discourse of Soviet violence) 
sometimes make moral lapses which offend people, and that it is not at 
all necessary to make said lapses if care is taken.  The "Stalinka" web 
site is a case in point.  We have seen people object (on moral grounds) 
to the very name of the site.  Well, if that objection seems trivial, 
take a look at the site itself.  You will find there numerous photos of 
Stalin, Stalin with friends and family, Stalin giving speeches, Stalin 
lying in state, a Stalin poster being kissed by a woman, Stalin vases, 
rugs, busts, pictures of victory demonstrations, various medals and 
certificates, a pass to a red army parade, etc. etc.

NOW do you see what is wrong?  There are NO pictures of documents in 
which Stalin orders mass murders; there are NO pictures of Stalin 
conversing with people about to die; there are NO pictures of 
bullet-ridden bodies; there are NO pictures of Stalin's concentration 
camps; there are NO pictures of dying zeks; there are NO pictures of the 
countless children made orphans by Stalin; there are NO maps indicating 
the deportation of nationalities ordered by Stalin; etc. etc.

There is that famous picture of the little girl in a sailor suit with 
Stalin.  Why don't we also have a picture of her father, Ardan Markizov, 
People's Commissar of Agriculture for the Buriat-Mongol Autonomous 
Republic, who was shot dead not long after the picture was taken?  Or 
the girl's mother, who served out a term in the Gulag, then committed 
suicide?

Yes, I did ask for an "apology" from those who created this 
"educational" site.  But I might settle for some statement justifying 
such poor "educational" judgement.


Daniel Rancour-Laferriere

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------