Shane Tomashot
Review: Mass Culture in Soviet Russia
Authors James von Geldern and Richard Stites
portray Soviet Mass Culture as neither monolithic nor entirely “suffocated” by
Stalinism, as is commonly believed in Western thought. In their book Mass Culture in Soviet
Russia: Tales, Poems, Songs, Movies, Plays and Folklore, 1917-1953, they
analyze Soviet mass culture through four eras: The Revolution and the New
Regime 1917-1927, the Stalinist Thirties, Russia at War and the Postwar Era. Von Geldern and Stites contend that although
“official voices spoke loudest” they were not always the most effective (p.
xxvii). Thus, the socialism of the
Soviet era was not rigid. It was
intricate with everything from official propaganda films and songs to underground
anti-establishment poems and novels.
Many unofficial stories and tales circulated throughout the Soviet
Union, despite official censure. Thus
Socialist Russia was not “the monolith of George Orwell’s nightmares” (p. xii).
Propaganda demanded the cooperation of three
groups: the Party and state, the artists, and the audience. Party officials commonly bought into their
own propaganda, although some officials sought Western movies and novels. Even if they did not fall victim to their own
propaganda, they often followed the Party line out of a sense of survival under
Stalin by the mid 1930’s. Artists were
similar to the Party officials in that there were some who worked to glorify
the Bolsheviks, Stalinism, the Red Army and “The Great Patriotic War,” while
other groups, such as the stilyagi, battled against Stalin from the underground
in an “unofficial culture.”
It may
very well be the audience, in the estimation of Von Geldern and Stites that was
the greatest propagator of propaganda as they were the consumers of
choice. They could not be forced to read
certain novels or poems or believe what they saw in Party propaganda films. Artists and party officials were, in a sense,
limited to what the public was willing to consume. Regardless, Soviet mass culture became a tool
to inspire and mold rather than to “report the truth.” “The onslaught of positive feelings masked
insecurity, poverty, fear, and tragedy” (p.
xxiv).
The Revolutionary/Bolshevik era witnessed a
struggle amongst party leaders in determining what Bolsheviks thought people
should read as opposed to what people actually desired to read. A 1919 one act play by Pavel Arsky, a member
of the Petrograd Proletkult, portrays an evil White Army enemy as “beasts” and
gives its leader a German name (p. 25).
Moreover, the play portrays the Red Army as heroic and venerates the
commune. The Proletkult, an independent
cultural organization that prided itself on glorifying the independence of the
worker, was eventually shunned by Lenin since he did not necessarily advocate
an independent proletariat.
Bublichki (hot buns or bagels), a 1920’s song of
the NEP era, depicts the negative aspects of street life during the NEP. The song is considered “the most notorious of
the ‘underground’ songs of the NEP era” (p. 70). Hence, it was banned in the Soviet Union
until the late 1980’s, but was spread by word of mouth in various forms
throughout the existence of the USSR.
Its verses mention the “nighttime gloom” of the city streets and the
“bitter plight” of the common man, often carelessly addicted to alcohol (p.
71).
The radical and “violent policies
of the Cultural Revolution (1928-1932) changed things,” the authors contend (p.
xvi). Soviet culture became a war
against the bourgeois and Intelligentsia.
The Bolsheviks were split over the bond between politics and culture. Avant-garde artists also initiated a divide,
creating their own world view of the Revolution. Leaders asked: Should the post NEP culture be
created by “pure but amateurish workers, or skilled but déclassé artists”? (p. xv).
The Worker Correspondent (Rabkor) Movement, for instance, worked to make
“political leaders aware of public opinion” (p. 128). In the short story “The Thoughts, Cares, and
Deeds of the Workers,” Ivan Zhiga, a Rabkor, describes the life of a factory
worker including the horrible living conditions of the barracks. The movement was eventually co-opted by the
party for use as a propaganda tool.
By 1930, while some writers questioned the
collectivization drive of the Stalinist regime, others provided support. An article by novelist Fyodor Panfyorov in
1930, entitled “Rammed it Through, Notes from the Road,” questions the
collectivization campaign. He quotes
workers of the kolkhoz who criticize Communist officials and their practices
(p. 143-148). An essay by M. Ilin in
1930 entitled “The Story of the Great Plan,” however, provides “lyrical and
dynamic descriptions of the great construction epics” of Stalin’s first
five-year plan. He depicts capitalist
societies as greedy and wasteful while anointing socialism as a movement “for
the good of tomorrow” (p. 173).
Collectivization and industrialization, the authors
contend, nearly obliterated Russian popular culture. The authorities banned western and sci-fi
novels. Moreover, the Intelligentsia
essentially “surrendered its independence” (p. xvi). By the early 1930’s, supervised radio
stations transmitted the same information to millions of citizens. So-called “Proletarians” took charge of the
new culture/propaganda machine as authorities worked to create a more militant
culture (for example, see the song “Katyusha,” p. 315). Furthermore, the Soviet
leadership categorized mass culture into various literature and art areas, as a
means of information control. This new
“social realism” created an idealistic reality only propagated by the central
authority but not realized in actual society.
The “cult of personality” around Stalin was put
into full gear by 1932. “A powerful apparatus of conformity” emerged, as
artists were compelled to conform to artistic expressions depicting the
leadership in a positive light. This was
dangerous, too, however. If an artist
glorified a particular leader who was later banished by Stalin, the artist
could face the gulag or death (p. xxi).
The safest route was “flattery,” depicting Stalin as heroic, foreigners
as villains and Russian soldiers as heroic (p. xxi).
The
cult of personality, however, was not necessarily under the complete control of
the state apparatus. Many youth exhibited
“unrelenting optimism” and hope for a socialist future existence (p. xviii). This optimism was encouraged, for example, by
the stories of the famous pilot Chkalov or the radio speech of the rocket
scientist Tsiolkovsky (pp. 258-266).
Stalin’s
personal (and greatly embellished) story had democratic undertones that
“touched the hearts of millions.” His
story led Russians to believe that they could overcome the same obstacles
Stalin faced and lead a glorious existence (p. xix). Songs such as “Sportsman’s March” and “Life’s
Getting Better,” rang themes of teamwork and togetherness as well as faith in
Stalin’s leadership (p. 235-238).
Critics of Stalinist mass culture were matched by those who “welcomed a
message of opportunity” (p. xx). The
state officials themselves often bought into the façade of the cult of
personality, including Stalin himself.
In the remaining sections, Von Geldern and Stites
focus the reader’s attention to “Russia at War” and the post-war era. The propaganda laden 1930’s, which boasted of
Russian unity in a Socialist land of plenty, worked to unify Russians in the
war effort. War time culture
“redirected the poisonous hatred of the late 1930’s toward a faceless
aggressor” (p. xxi). Artists were caught
up in the spirit of patriotism and encouraged by the Communist Party to
perpetuate male and female war time stereotypes. Moreover, artists were able to express
feelings of camaraderie absent of political pressure. The famous tune “Dark is the Night,” written
by Bogoslovsky and Agatov in 1943, expresses yearning for a loved one while
away at battle, rather than demonizing Nazi invaders (pp. 377-378). In a similar vein, “Conversation with a Neighbor”
focuses on unity and “human loyalty that transcended class boundaries” in the
face of the brutal Nazi siege of Leningrad (pp. 379-380). These themes became the hallmark of Soviet
culture during World War II.
This
book offers a plethora of useful artistic works that shed light on the cultural
contributions of the artists of the various Soviet eras from 1917-1953. Cultural historians, however, may take issue
with the fact that the authors never detail the facets of “mass culture.” A clear definition may have helped the reader
focus upon the motivations of the various artists within each era. Moreover, their de-emphasis on Stalinist control
needs further elucidation, as it flies in the face of the notions of
totalitarianism and the Purges of the late 1930’s. The inclusion of an index would also have
been a nice addition.
No comments:
Post a Comment