“You will never be able to start a new life –
You can only start
What’s left of it. ”
Romanian poet Leo Butnaru [1]
–
–
Content will continue after the ad
Advertising
–
The concept of “Soviet man” has become a convenient excuse for a priori human characteristics and patterns of behavior. I can also not be so aggressive. If the director of “Homo Sovieticus” is worried about the rise of totalitarianism in the 21st century [2], then the concerns of him and other authors of the film are completely justified, however, the causes are not to be found only in the “heritage” of the USSR.
More than complicated: if we look at the characteristics of the “Soviet people” – adaptation to the majority, double morality, perception of the world in the “we against strangers” model, etc. – then they are observed all over the world and in all ages. It remains to turn to the modern United States, China, Turkey or Pakistan. Or Nigeria if you prefer.
Hypocrisy – do we not do what we preach? In early 19th-century British society, which vehemently opposed slavery, “the same people who had boycotted sugar imported from the British West Indies continued to dress in slave-grown cotton and smoked tobacco from the South of America.” [3] Adaptation? “Kurzemes Vārds” in 1942 (September 26) reports that German soldiers also visited Sibelius, for whom the composer proudly showed the Goethe Medal recently awarded by Hitler. Sibelius has expressed joy that he can experience this time, which will finally bring justice to the world … In December 1945, the composer Jean Sibelius turned 80 years old. In the newly founded newspaper “Literature and Art” [14. decembrī] could read the memories of the Soviet composer Dmitry Kabalevsky about visiting a prominent Finnish speaker … At the end of the conversation Sibelius asked to convey his warmest greetings and best wishes to Soviet musicians, recalled Kabalevsky. [4]
Manipulative hatred of others and a sense of self-superiority? “The Sophisticated Stephen Zweig in His Memories” Yesterday ‘s World. A European remembers “the beginning of the First World War:” A city of two million, a land of fifty million, felt at this hour that they were experiencing world history, a moment that will never return, and that everyone was called to throw their tiny self into this grieving mass to purify itself from any selfishness. “” [5] Reminds of Stalin’s times. It seems that the “Ulman times” in Latvia have nothing to do with the formation of “homo sovieticus”, but the researcher who writes: “Cooperation [1940. gadā] unfortunately, the differences in the colors of the parties were not known at the time; The career opportunities in the new facility were used by a wide variety of people, most of whom came from “civic” circles loyal to the Ulman regime and not from underground social democrats. ” [6] It can go on for a long time, so in conclusion I will only remind you of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He may seem to mention him upside down in the context of the “Soviet man”, but it should be noted that the author of the Gulag archipelago, especially at the end of his life, produced such imperial and critical critics of Western liberal values that he could just as well be considered a real “homo sovieticus”.
The film interviews one of the most meaningful sociologists working in Russia today, Lev Gudkov. This year a collection of articles “Dismantling Communism. Thirty Years Later” was published, and one of its authors is Gudkov. And although he uses the term “Soviet man”, he uses it in a broader context – with the term “mass man”, which in turn appears in totalitarian regimes in Italy, Germany and not only in the early 20th century. [7] The following quote may sound too tangled, but it is important: “Soviet society did not create any specific type of man, it shaped a specific division of human types, giving the dominant figure to the figure of the Soviet man.” [8] In other words (or in my subjective interpretation), what we call the “Soviet man” is present in human society in general. The question is what and to what extent this type of behavior affects our lives.
It is convenient to attribute the traits and patterns of behavior (me, you, others) that scare / sad / annoy to the “sacred brains” of decades of occupation (Latvia) or totalitarian regimes (Russia). In this way, we are basically saying that this is a past that somehow drags on, even continues to manifest itself in younger generations, but potentially we can get rid of it. For my part, it seems to me that, in that case, we are ignoring two important aspects.
The first. Regardless of the sign we use – “Soviet man”, “mass man” or something else – we have the characteristics associated with these signs because we are living beings. I could write a sizable text about what “Soviet people” are birds or gorillas in their behavior from time to time. From violence against the weak and bowing to a brawler, to pretending to be selfish. Respectively, we have put a minus sign on forms of behavior that are actually natural, only we, considering ourselves to be fundamentally different and special, superior to “animals”, believe that it is not appropriate for man to behave in this way. We are not “Soviet people”, but simply primates. Cut to the ears? I can not help.
The second. Modern “liberal democracies” and the capitalist economy maintain the full potential of the “Soviet man”. In the case of the “Soviet man”, the expression of the USSR time “sometimes I have not read, but there is an opinion …” is sometimes used. Typical of the “Soviet man”, right? No. It remains to look at today’s social networks. Exactly the same. Not talking to the “boss”? A capitalist company is sometimes no different from a Soviet factory. In the world of the 21st century, the concept of “bullshit job” has even become stronger, which continues to imitate the work of the USSR. In short, if we are annoyed by “advice”, then we must look critically at today. Or, as a Latvian poet recently wrote, “capitalism is not a mitigating circumstance.” [9]
Returning to the lines of Butnaru at the beginning of this text, we cannot start a “new life” without a “Soviet man”.
Used sources:
Inostrannaja Literature, Issue 6, 2018, 108-109. p.
‘I am worried about the return of totalitarianism.’ Conversation with ‘Homo Sovieticus’ director Ivo Briedi – DELFI
Frank Trentmann. Empire of Things. Penguin Books, 2017. gads, 572. lpp.
Anna Velēda Žīgure. The noble people of the North. The Image of Finland in the Latvian Press 1822 – 1945. Science, 2018, pp. 247 and 261.
Igor Shuvayev. Take care of the soul. Fates of values. Science, 2019, p.
Ivars Ījabs. Social democracy and statehood. Latvia. Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 2019, 62-63. p.
Dismantling Communism. Tridcatj let spustja. Novoje literaryurn obozreni, 2021, p.
Ibid., P.
Ieva Viese. Punctummagazine, 26.06.2021.
–
