Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: March 17, 2021 at 2:51:49 PM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-SHERA]: Gapova on Astrouskaya, 'Cultural Dissent in > Soviet Belarus (1968-1988): Intelligentsia, Samizdat and Nonconformist > Discourses' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Tatsiana Astrouskaya. Cultural Dissent in Soviet Belarus > (1968-1988): Intelligentsia, Samizdat and Nonconformist Discourses. > Historische Belarus-Studien Series. Wiesbaden Harrassowitz Verlag, > 2019. 245 pp. $65.00 (paper), ISBN 978-3-447-11188-1. > > Reviewed by Elena Gapova (Western Michigan University) > Published on H-SHERA (March, 2021) > Commissioned by Hanna Chuchvaha > > In _Cultural Dissent in Soviet Belarus_, Tatsiana Astrouskaya tells > the story of the plight of nonconformist Belarusian intelligentsia > during the last decades of Soviet rule. She focuses mostly on writers > and literati who used to have a place of honor in Soviet society, > where they enjoyed the status of public intellectuals and judges of > truth and morality. This material has never been studied before; in > general, Belarus has been considered a "voiceless" Soviet republic in > terms of dissent (especially if compared with neighboring Ukraine and > Lithuania). This new research problematizes this point of view, to a > great extent demonstrating that the reason for this perspective might > have been lack of published work on unconventional thinking in > Belarus, not the absence of nonconformity. While one may not > subscribe to the interpretations offered in the book in their > entirety, much of what is said is compelling and sometimes even > revealing, bringing to light a whole new layer of Belarusian cultural > and intellectual history, and weaving together events, names, ideas, > texts, and social connections. > > The book is a published doctoral dissertation (defended in 2018), > which shows in its structure and general makeup. In Europe, at least > in Germany, Sweden, and some other countries, there is an academic > tradition of publishing dissertations as (first) books, which makes > it possible to disseminate findings and insights as soon as they > become available. However, some (smaller) academic publishers, while > professional in dealing with oeuvres in their national languages, do > not have personnel and resources to prepare works in English, and > this is the case with the book under discussion. Errors in English > grammar and syntax are abundant and sometimes hamper making sense of > what the author means in a particular sentence. I am bringing this > technical complaint up front to have my hands free of it to focus on > the work's ideas and interpretations in the rest of the review. > > The book has 1968--the liminal year of the Prague Spring--in its > title: in the former socialist bloc, the date symbolizes both the > hopes and the demolition of post-Stalinist liberalization. However, > Astrouskaya starts her story much earlier, beginning with the period > still under Russian imperial rule. Chapter 2 ("The Intelligentsia, > Official and Uncensored Publishing: A Historical Background"), which > follows the introduction (chapter 1) explaining research questions, > methodology, and sources, provides a much longer historical line. It > goes all the way from the partition of Poland of 1772 (when > Belarusian lands were first incorporated into the Russian Empire) > through the nineteenth century, the revolution of 1917, the Soviet > period, with a glimpse of Belarusian intellectual life in Western > Belarus (then a part of Poland) between the two world wars, World War > II, and the first decade after it. This historical background is > supposed to set the stage for what comes later, affirming the issue > of writing and publishing in the Belarusian language as the key form > of cultural dissent (more on this below). > > Chapters 3 to 6 cover the post-Stalinist period. They present in some > detail the life trajectories of several outstanding national literati > born before World War II (Maksim Tank, Vasil Bykau, and Uladzimir > Karatkevich, to name the most prominent ones), pay special attention > to cultural politics during "developed socialism," and celebrate > initiatives and projects that surfaced during perestroika. The author > carefully considers samizdat and uncensored publications of the > period and casts a brief glance at intelligentsia's reaction to > anti-Semitism and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986. Eventually, > the story reaches the lifting of censorship and transition to free > media during perestroika. The book also includes appendices with > tables of relevant publications and lists of renowned intellectuals > belonging to several generations detailing their dates of birth, > social origin, education, Communist Party membership, and other > relevant data. This material will be especially important for future > researchers of Belarusian intellectual history. > > The focus of the book is on cultural dissent. While no concrete > definition of "dissent" is provided, it can be adequately described, > with few exceptions, through the concept of _raznomyslie_ or "the > diversity of thinking." Introduced some fifteen years ago by the > Russian sociologist Boris Firsov (_Diversity of Thinking in the USSR, > 1940s-1960s: History, Theory and Practices_ [2008]) in relation to > post-Stalinist Soviet intelligentsia, it denotes an array of > practices and forms of expression that should not be considered as > political protest acts per se but rather as the realization of > intellectual autonomy. In its discussion of _raznomyslie_, the book > follows two paths: on the one hand, it considers unconventional ideas > that penetrated official literature; and on the other, it analyzes > (attempts of) periodical and non-periodical samizdat (_samvydat_, in > Belarusian) and _tamizdat _(foreign publications), and some other > forms of nonconformist intellectualism. Astrouskaya intends to > demonstrate that dissident ideas did not spread unidirectionally from > the center to the periphery but to prioritize "the > multi-directionality of cultutal relationships" (p. 5). > > However, socialist dissent--the topic (and the very word)--is a > charged subject. There is a certain tradition, a preconceived > context, coming out of the Cold War in which it originated, and its > preexistence may "tint" more current perspectives with connotations > that are not easy to disentangle. Thus, when writing about dissent in > the former socialist bloc there is a temptation to succumb to the > well-established and still popular binary paradigm of > "totalitarianism" versus "freedom." Astrouskaya seeks to embrace a > more complex approach by recognizing that one could be a part of the > system yet still have a critical view of it. Assuming that "the > meandering between collaboration and resistance" was characteristic > of socialist intelligentsia throughout the region, she excapes from > justapositions and arrives, wisely, at more nuanced interpretations > of relationships and "negotiations" between intellectual elites and > Soviet authorities (p. 2). She writes about the blurriness of dissent > and official belonging, or, in her own words, "paradoxical > compromise" (p. 89). > > This compromise deserves some attention. Many recognized > intellectuals of the older generation (born before World War II) used > to be Communist Party members. Vasyl Bykau, the most prominent of > them, was in the 1980s a deputy of the Supreme Soviet and a recipient > of the Lenin Prize in literature, the highest Soviet award. His works > were translated into all (or most) national languages of the USSR and > were published extensively with print runs that would be unthinkable > in the current market economy. As a recognized writer and a Soviet > "envoy," he traveled the world. At the same time, intelligentsia > (rightly) considered him a "rebel," a person who "told the truth" > about the real human price of Soviet victory in World War II and > terrible choices one had to make in the war zone. > > The question is how to explain this paradox (in the Weberian sense of > _verstehen_ or "interpretative sociology"), which, in the long run, > is a question about sincerity and truth. Being a part of the system, > did socialist intellectuals lie? Or could they sincerely believe in > what they were doing on behalf of the system? Questions like these > can have meaningful answers if one recognizes that socialism was not > necessarily "evil" (as it is often presented) in the eyes of the > people who were a part of it: Bykau's generation considered their > country to be on the "right side of history" in its anti-fascist > struggle and in some other historical events as well. Suffice it to > say that most Soviet Belarusian writers addressed the events of World > War II in one way or another in their work, as Belarusians lost > one-fourth of their population (the highest ratio in the world) in > that conflict. This background matters for any discussion of the > period. However, treating World War II (or, rather, the Great > Patriotic War, as it was known at the time) as the "Soviet-German > conflict" and avoiding any discussion of human casualties and > destruction not only excludes Belarusians as active agents from those > events but also implies that that there was nothing "right" about > fighting as partisans and as members of the Soviet military (p. 49). > To put it differently: the book sometimes ascribes post-Soviet but > also "anti-Soviet" (coming out of the Cold War) meanings and > interpretations to texts and actions that had a different meaning for > those who participated in them. To give another example: Astrouskaya > treats the satirical poem by Nil Hilevich "On the Bald Mountain" > ("Skaz pra Lysaiu haru") as aiming at the very foundation of Soviet > rule. However, at the time of its appearance in the mid-1970s, the > poem, which was anonymous and was circulated widely among > intelligentsia, was perceived as grotesque satire of the mercantile > "instincts" of members of the Writers' Union, not the condemnation of > the Soviet system. > > Another focal point of the book is the issue of the Belarusian > language, which is also charged. Relegated during the imperial period > mostly to uneducated peasantry, and with Belarusian nationalism > emerging quite late (in comparison to Ukrainian nationalism, for > example), the language was fully codified and entered schools, higher > educational institutions, and "official" literature only under Soviet > rule as a result of considerable and conscious effort. The process > was not unproblematic, as in the 1920s urban educated groups were > unhappy about being forced to switch to what they considered a "less > developed" language.[1] After several decades, though, Belarusian > almost went out of daily use among educated elites in the same way as > it had been initially "uplifted"; as with urbanization and > industrialization, Russian, a common language that the elites and > administrators all over the USSR could understand, allowed access to > social mobility, career opportunitites, and global culture. Following > her protagonists, intellectuals and literati, Astrouskaya equates the > issue of the Belarusian language (its going out of popular use) and > the "preservation of national culture" to that of "freedom," which > somewhat simplifies the problem. It is true that "cultural > dissidents," who are at the center of the book, made the issue of the > Belarusian language (and not "human rights" or "political freedom," > as was the dissident case in the Soviet center) their "holy grail." > They perceived the decline of the Belarusian language (in which they > had an interest) as the degradation of national culture or, as Zianon > Pazniak, the head of the nationalist Popular Front, stated, a moral > and intellectual catastrophe. However, as the Byelorussian Soviet > Republic was becoming one of the most technologically advanced in the > USSR, the modernized and urbanized Belarusian society was not > interested in the Belarusian language to the same extent.[2] At some > point during perestroika the language issue was resurrected under the > guidance of oppositional elites (and Pazniak as their unquestionable > guru of the period). But with time, it subsided and the efforts of > anti-Alexander Lukashenko opposition to promote it never gained wide > support. For example, the current "Belarusian revolution," which > started in August 2020 in response to the tremendous election fraud, > is mainly a "Russian-speaking phenomenon," driven by educated > urbanites. While there is interest in the national past and the use > of national symbols, the revolution, which _is_ about political > freedom, does not equate it to language and culture. > > However, disagreements regarding the interpretation of the material > are understandable taking into account its complex nature. In her > book, Astrouskaya narrates a story of Belarusian intelligentsia, and > the issues that she raises are important and often controversial. > While at times perspectives that the book suggests may be debatable, > its contribution to the scholarship and legacy of East European > socialist intelligentsia is undeniable. As far as Belarusian > intellectual history is concerned, this is a much-needed work. > > Notes > > [1]. See Per Rudling, _The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, > 1906-1931_ (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015), > 210-42. > > [2]. See, for example, Elena Gapova, "O politicheskoi ekonomii > natsional'nogo iazyka v Belarusi," _Ab Imperio_ 3 (2005): 405-41. > > Citation: Elena Gapova. Review of Astrouskaya, Tatsiana, _Cultural > Dissent in Soviet Belarus (1968-1988): Intelligentsia, Samizdat and > Nonconformist Discourses_. H-SHERA, H-Net Reviews. March, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55013 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#7353): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/7353 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/81411522/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
