WORKINPROGRESS–DONOTSPREAD
SocialistRealism–ametaphysicsofeverydaylife?
ThispaperdoesnotpresentanattemptatdefiningSocialistRealisminitsmanifold
aspects,appearancesand“shores”,becauseoneoftheproblemswiththetermappears
rathertobeanoverdeterminationofitasbothanaestheticcategoryandpoliticaltool.
SocialistrealismwasthenamefortheofficiallyacclaimedartandliteratureoftheSoviet
Unionfrom1934untilapproximatelythe1980:s,orreally,tothefalloftheSovietUnion.
Besides,SocialistrealismclaimedacanonstartingfromMaksimGorkyandgoing
throughtheproletarianliteratureofthe1920:s.ToaskthequestionwhatSocialist
realism“reallywas”besidesthisstatesanctionedartleadstofurtherdeterminations,
anditappearsmorefruitfultoaskthequestionhowSocialistrealismworked,andwhat
ideasandconceptswereatworkinthedoctrine.Theaimwiththisstudyisthereforeto
highlighttheprecariousrelationbetweenthetwomainconceptsthatdeterminesitasa
doctrine:socialismandrealism.InthisstudyIparticularlyfocusontheconceptof
realismandthenatureofthepreoccupationwiththe”real”,becausewhereasthe
problemsofthe“Socialist”aspect,orrather,itsutopianaspectshavebeenthoroughly
scrutinized,thedogmasofrealismhavebeenverylittlequestioned.1Ifocusonthe
literatureofSocialistRealism,andofthereasonsisthatthedoctrinewasfoundedwith
literatureasanexampleattheWriters’Unionin1934.
1RegineRobindiscussesthenatureofwhatshecallsthe“discursivebases”ofSocialistrealisminSocialist
Realism:animpossibleaesthetics.(1992)However,sheopposestheminarathersuperficialway,asserting
thatsocialistrealismsayswhat”mustbe”,whereasrealismdescribeswhatis.
Thedictumhasitthat–becauseutopiainartandpoliticshidordistortedtherealin
SocialistRealism,therecanbenorealism,andnoreality.Dobrenkoassertsinthe
PoliticalEconomyofSocialistRealism(2007),SocialistRealismresultsin“de‐realization”
and:“aside‐effectofthisoperationisthede‐realizationofeverydayness:available
realitymustceasetoexistinordertoappearintheformofsocialism.”(p.14)The
problemwiththishypothesisisthatitpresupposesthatthereissuchathingasthe
“real”,as“everydayness”,“availablereality”and,asaconsequence,therealistclaimsare
notscrutinizedintheirownright.However,withNabokov,whovehementlyhated
realisminallitsform,seeinginitbutaconventionalimageofwhatpeoplebelievetobe
real,wecanquestiontheexistenceofandtheaccesstoaneverydayreality:
”Whose“reality”?“Everyday”where?Letmesuggestthattheveryterm“everyday
reality”isutterlystaticsinceitpresupposesasituationthatispermanentlyobservable,
essentiallyobjective,anduniversallyknown.Isuspectyouhaveinventedthatexperton
“everydayreality.”Neitherexists.”(Nabokov,“TheArtofFiction”inTheParisReview)
Nabokovunderlinesthatthenotionsofeverydaynessandofrealityarebasedonthe
ideathatthereisanobservable,objectifiable“situation”,calledreality.Thiswasof
courseoneofthedogmasof19thcenturyrealism,althoughitwasproblematizedin
manyrealistwritings.Sayingthatthereisan“everydayreality”isnotsimplyassuming
thatthereisonerealityaccessibletousasarealityinourexperience,butalsothatwe
indeedlivethisrealityasareality.Moreso,thequestforthe“reality”ofthe“real”often
hastheformofaquestforadescriptionofsomethingasastateoraconditionthatisina
moretruthfulwaythantheworldasitisgiventous.Incontrasttotheactualitasof
Greekreality,whichtranslatesasWirklichkeitinGermanordeistvitel’nost’inRussian,
the“reality”ofrealismderivesfromthelatin“res”,whichtranslatesasathing,asan
objectifiablestate.Often,whenspeakingofrealityanditsdepiction,wespeakofa
depictionofathingthatisinitself,andrealismoftenthematizedthewaysof
understandingorattainingthisres.AsHaydenWhitewrotein“TheProblemofStylein
RealisticRepresentation”(2007),incriterionfordeterminingstyleinrealistic
representationwas“ratherthematterorcontentofthediscourse”.Further(this):
“meantthatstylehadtodowithcognitiveperspicuity,theinsightthatthewriterhad
intothe“natureofthings”.Inotherwords,aproblemwithDobrenko’sargumentaswith
theargumentsofmanyothercriticsofSocialistRealismisthatwhencriticizingsocialist
realismforitsutopianorfalserepresentationofreality,thefundamentaldogmasof
realismremainunthematized.Infact,theresearchonSocialistRealismseemstoimplya
strangerevindicationofrealism,orofthereal–initsnon‐Socialistform.Thestudiesof
SocialistRealismhaveinotherwordsoftenassumedthatthereisanormal,soundand
objectifiablerealitythatwasdistorted,andthattheaimofthefieldistodescribethe
distortionsofthisparticularimageofrealityandthewaythatideologicalrealitywas
imposedtothepeople.Theassumptionmakesourtaskaneasyone–allthatwemustdo
istoidentifyanobjectifiableanomaly,or,perhaps,ananomalytotheobjectifiable,
becauserealityinitseverydayformremainsunquestioned.
However,ifweinsteadfollowNabokov’srejectionofeverydaylife,asaninventionof
realism,wecanaskourselvesifnotthegermtothetotalizingutopiaofeverydaylifethat
wefindinSocialistRealismliesinrealismitselfanditsideaofreality.WithNabokovand
otheraesthetics,wecanaskifwedonotinventandaffirmacertainideaofthereal
ratherthanrealityinourwaysofunderstandinganddepictingsocialandeverydaylife
inarealistkey.Moreso,neitherrealismnorSocialistRealismaimedatportrayingthe
happysocietyofutopia,butbothforthemostpartsoughttoestablishamoreorless
intelligiblerelationtowhatitassertedasreality,andthiswasallegedlyarealitythatis
asitisinitself.Inthisendeavortoestablish“reality”asitis,therewasaneducative
tendencyoranurgeinrealism,Iwillargue,tofindaschemefortranscendingvisible
physisandforestablishingametaphysicsofthereal,orametaphysicsofeveryday
reality.Therealintermsofthevisibleasobjectifiable,aswhichispossibletoenhancein
therealistdepictionoftheworldwastobethebasisforreflectionsontheuttermatters
oftheworld,onmeaningormeaninglessness,onGodortheabsenceofGod,andwhatis
highlypertinent–this“real”wasthebasisofreflectionsonlaws,groundsandcauseand
effectinsociallifeandinhistory.
Notrarelyhavetheaestheticsoftheavant‐gardeortheaestheticsofthesublimebeen
accusedofcontainingthegermtoatotalizingviewonsociety,althoughinthese
aestheticsthenotionoftherealismuchmoreproblematic.2Theaestheticsofthe
sublimeinSovietLiteraturecanalsoberelatedtothedepictionoftheimmensityofthe
eventandexperienceoftheRevolutionasaphenomenononthelimitsofrepresentation.
Instead,Iwillarguethatthereinrealismisatotalizingtendencytoexplainandform
relationstotheworldasares,orafixedstateofaffairsormatter,andthatthe“reality”
ofrealismconcerned,primarilycertainaspectsofreality–suchassocial,politicaland
historical,giveninphysicsandraisedtometaphysics.3Theseproblemswithrealism
2Intheaestheticsofthesublime,itcanbeargued,theworldasitisgivesitselftousonlybeyondour
capacitiesatrepresentation.
3Cf.LukacsinTheTheoryoftheNovel:”Thisindestructiblebondwithrealityasitis,thecrucialdifference
betweentheepicandthedrama,isanecessaryconsequenceoftheobjectoftheepicbeinglifeitself.The
conceptofessenceleadstotranscendencesimplybybeingposited,andthen,inthetranscendent,
crystallisesintoanewandhigheressenceexpressingthroughitsformanessencethatshouldbe—an
essencewhich,becauseitisbornofform,remainsindependentofthegivencontentofwhatmerelyexists.
Theconceptoflife,ontheotherhand,hasnoneedofanysuchtranscendencecapturedandheldimmobile
asanobject.”(p.19)
weretransportedintoSocialistRealism,wheretheeducationofthemassesintothe
causeandeffectofsocial,politicalandhistoricallifewasafundamentalprinciple,anda
principlethatacquiredapparentandgrossmetaphysicalfeatures.4
SocialistRealism
ThedoctrineofSocialistRealismwasfirstmentionedinthecentralliteraryjournal
LiteraturnaiaGazetain1932,andestablishedatthefirstcongressoftheWriters’Union
in1934.In1932theOrgburoofthepartyhadalso“liquidated”otherliterarygroupsand
organizationsthathadbeenclosedtothepartyandhadparticipatedinthedefinitionof
proletarian,Sovietandrevolutionaryartinthetwenties,suchasProletkultandRAPP.
Now,themainorganfortheliteratureoftheSovietUnionwastobetheWriters’Union
andthiscongresswastoannounceitsdirection.Thewholecongressspannedovertwo
weeksandresultedin700pagesofstenography.AleksandrFadeev,amancloseto
Stalin,heldtheopeningspeechinwhichheestablishedSocialistRealismasadoctrine
anddefineditsfeatures.AfterFadeevcameMaksimGorky,becauseitwasintheimage
ofhimthatthesovietwriterwasnotonlytowrite,butalsotodeveloporeducate
himself.Notableisalsothatamongstthe500writerswhotookpartwefindoneofthe
chiefideologuesofthepartyinthethirties,AndreiZhdanov,aswellasBorisPasternak,
IuriiOleshaandIlyaEhrenburg.
Inhisspeech,FadeevcharacterizedSocialistRealismbyits“participationinthesocialist
construction”.TheSovietwriter,this“engineerofthesoul”,wasto“giveahistorical‐
4TherearemanystudiesonthereligiousfeaturesofSocialistrealism,suchasPapernyiandClark.The
reasonwhy,asGroyspoints,remainsunclear.(TheTotalArtofStalinism,1992,p.64)
concretedepictionofrealityinitsrevolutionarydevelopment”.5Theliteraturewasalso
aimedattheideological”remaking”andeducationoftheworkersinthespiritof
socialism”.6Fadeev’sspeechwasaimedatdefiningcertainqualitiesofSocialistRealism
lessthandefiningitssubjectmatterandstyle.Atthispointitwasevenassertedthat
SocialistRealismwastoallowforapluralityofstyles,formsandgenres.Although
questionable,itispossiblethatthequestforamoreunifiedstylecamelater.7Thereis
nothinginhisdescriptionthatsaysthatsocietymustbedepictedina”better”utopian
form,but,itwasimportant,andthiswasaddedinalaterspeech,thatSovietliterature
”affirms”,utverzhdaet,Sovietreality.8IntheRussianword”utverzhdaet”wehearthe
samestemasintheEnglishword”affirm”,namelyfirm,andwecansaythatoneofthe
mainpurposesoftheSovietliteraturewasto”makefirm”its”reality”,thatis,itsvision
of,ormetaphysicsofthereal.
WhenconsideringSocialistRealismasanaestheticorartisticdoctrine,itisofcourse
importanttomentionthatwhatmakesSocialistRealismuniqueinrelationtoallother
formsofrealismisofcoursethefactthatitwasestablishedbyrepresentativesofthe
stateandthatitwasaimedtoperformacertanfunctionvis‐á‐visthisstate.Thisfunction
isasmuchconstructivistasitiseducatory,orasBorisGroysinsists,SocialistRealism
aimedat“educatingandshapingthemasses”(p.37).Groysfurtherinsiststhat“the
Stalinerasatisfiedthefundamentalavant‐gardedemandthatartceaserepresentinglife
andbegintransformingitbymeansofatotalaesthetico‐politicalproject”.Although
5«...правдивого,исторически‐конкретногоизображениядействительностивеереволюционном
развитии».
6«...идейнойпеределкиивоспитаниятрудящихсявдухесоциализма»
7ВместестемвУставеуказывалось,чтосоциалистич.реализмобеспечиваетсамыеширокие
возможности«...проявлениятворческойинициативы,выбораразнообразныхформ,стилейи
жанров»(тамже,с.716).
8«...Социалистическийреализм,утверждаяновую,социалистическуюдействительность,новых
героев,втожевремяявляетсянаиболеекритическимизвсехреализмов»(тамже,с.234).
Groysadmitsoftheapparentdifferencesintheaestheticsoftheavant‐gardeandthatof
SocialistRealism,heneverthelessinsistsonafundamentalanddecisiveimpulsecoming
fromtheavant‐garde.Itseems,however,strangethatoneofthemainaestheticimpulses
ofSocialistRealism,thatisrealismwasnottohaveamoreprofoundimpactonthe
conceptionofitsfunctionandrole.Infact,IwillarguethatthequestinSocialistRealism
toassert,“tomakefirm”,therealityandthemetaphysicsofrealitythatitdepicts,wasan
impulsestemmingfromrealism.Theeducatorywillto”educateandshapethemasses”
canbefoundintheworkingsofMaximGorkybeforetheavant‐garde,anditinstructed
preciselyintothemetaphysicsofthereal.If19thcenturyrealismmirroredasocietyin
wantofitsraisond’être,SocialistRealismgaveusthisraisonandsawasitmainpurpose
toinstructintheaffirmationofit.Iwillreturntothisinstructionlater.
WhatwecanmakeoutofSocialistRealismasanartisticdoctrineonthebasisof
Fadeev’sspeechisthatSocialistRealismaddedtorealismtheideaandtaskofdepicting
adynamicreality,arealityandasocietyinandunderconstruction.Thereof,ofcourse
wefinditsinsistenceonhorizon:SocialistRealismisalwaysontheway,depictingand
formingnotonlyasociety,butalsoa“reality”inthemaking.Realitywastobeportrayed
inits“revolutionary”and“dynamic”form.Thisnew“socialist”purposeaddedtorealism
isnotasmuchautopiaaddedtothedepictionoftherealinart,butaparticularformof
relationto,orengagementwithwhatitconstruedasthereal.Thisengagementcanbe
consideredas“Socialist”,“Bolshevik”,“revolutionary”or“Soviet”orconstructivist.At
thesametime,wemust,however,alsoconsideritinitsnatureofbeing“realist”,thatis
theengagementwithwhatitassertedtobetherealwasbasedonavisionof“reality”,of
everydaylife,andofthehistoricalprocessesthatformsthisreality.
SocialistRealismwasnotformedsolelyontheprinciplesthatFadeevasserted.The
congresswasfollowedbydiscussionsandramificationprocessesintheunions,in
newspapersandinthecensorshipapparatus.Besidestheseformalaspectsofits
formationandofthewaythatitworkedasatoolforrepression,SocialistRealismwas
formedintheimageandontheexampleofasetofwriters.Themostprominentisof
courseMaximGorky,butseveralofthecanonicalworksofSocialistRealism,suchas
Cement(Tsement)byGladkov(1925)andTheIronStream(ZheleznyiPotok)(1924)by
SerafimovichandChapaevbyFurmanov(1923)werewrittenlongbeforethenotionof
SocialistRealismwasinvented,butwhenonlytheideaofaproletarianartwascurrent.
Boththesebooks,asmanySocialistrealistbooksbeforethesecondworldwar,treatand
formakindofeschatologyaroundtheRevolutionasapointzeroinitshistory,andthey
construeakindofrevolutionary‐constructivistengagementintermsofthe
enlightenmentoftheromanticrevolutionaryintheimageofMaksimGorky.This
engagementwasbasedontheideathathistoryinaninevitablewayhadledtothepoint
wheretheywereandthatthisengagementwasthecarrier,sometimestragic,sometimes
optimistic,andsometimesboth,ofhistoricaltruthandmeaning.
1.Realism
BeforelookingatthemetaphysicsofhistoricalrealityasSocialistRealismsetupon
constructingit,itishighlightingtogobacktovisionsofhistoryandofrealitythatit
inheritedfromrealism.SocialistRealismcameatapointintime,when,realismasan
artisticprincipleinitsquesttodepictreality“asitis”hadbeenthoroughlyquestioned
bytherepresentativesofmodernism.SomearguethatSocialistRealismwasastepback
toa19thcenturyaestheticsofplainrealism,andLeninaswellasGorkyarguedthatthe
newproletarianwritermusteducatehimselfontheexampleoftheoldmastersof
modernrealism.PerhapsonecansaythatSocialistRealisminmanywayssoughttoand
assertedthatitcouldsolveandundoasmuchtheproblemsofrealismastheproblems
oftheworldwithwhichrealismwasassociated.SocialistRealismpreservesmuchofthe
realitythatrealismposited,aswellastheschemeforunderstandingtherelationtothe
worldthatispredominantinrealism.9Whatitsoughttoundoin19threalismwas
accordingtoitselftheso‐calledbourgeoissocietyaftertheFrenchRevolution,aswellas
thebourgeois‐individualandsubjectiverenderingofreality,itsexistentialproblematic.
However,asIwilltrytoshow,italsokeepsmuchoftheproblematicBildungstructureof
realism.
1.1.Therealityofrealism
RegineRobinwritesin“SocialistRealism:animpossibleaesthetic”thatrealismis
“callingforanartofmimesisandverisimilitude,oftypicalandtruthfulrepresentation”
(p.84).Thisstatementappearsnaïvebothinthelightofthemodernistattackonthe
realistsandinthelightofscholarlydebateonrealism.Ashasbeenshownseveraltimes,
realismdealswitharealityandfavoursaparticularrelationtoit,orproblematizesthe
relationtothisrealityinparticularways.Importantaspectsofrealistrealityarethe
notionsofsocialfluidity,scientificpositivismandthedevelopmentoftheideaofthe
modernsolitarysubject.InMimesis:TheRepresentationofRealityinWesternLiterature,
ErichAuerbachmademimesisandtherepresentationofrealitytooneofthemajor
featuresofWesternLiteratureingeneral,andhedistinguishedwhathecalled“modern
realism”.Auerbach’smodernrealismistherealismthatunderstooditselfasrealism,
9Onethingthatsocialistrealismdefinitelyattemptedtosolvewasthatofthe”positivehero”thatthe
Russianrealistwritershadstruggledsomuchwith.
thatis,asanartisticpracticethatwaspreoccupiedwithdepicting“reality”.Auerbach
describesthisrealismandits“reality”asfollowing:
“Theserioustreatmentofeverydayreality,theriseofmoreextensiveandinferior
humangroupstothepositionofsubjectmatterforproblematic‐existential
representation,ontheonehand;ontheother,theembeddingofrandompersonsand
eventsinthegeneralcourseofcontemporaryhistory,thefluidhistoricalbackground‐
these,webelieve,arethefoundationsofmodernrealism,anditisnaturalthatthebroad
andelasticformofthenovelshouldincreasinglyimposeitselfforarendering
comprisingsomanyelements.”(Auerbach,2003,p.491)
ThewriterofMimesissinglesouttwosubjectmattersinrealismthatalsoaredecisivein
itscontinuationintoSocialistRealism:therepresentationofeverydaylifeandin
particularthatof“inferiorsocialgroups”,ontheonehand;ontheother;history,or
rather,therelationofthesegroupstohistory.Withoutfurtherdiscussingthematter,
whatAuerbachalsoletsusunderstandisthat“reality”acquiresparticularfeaturesand
istreatedinrelationtothese.Inotherwords,realityistreatedasthepositionofthe
modernsubjectwithregardstowhattosocial,historicalandpoliticalrealityoraspects
of“reality”inaproblematic‐existentialrelation.Itisarealityinwhichnorelationsare
givenforcertain,andwherethereisafluiditynotonlytohistory,butalsotothesocial
andpoliticalsituation.Inthissituationthesubjectentersintoaproblematicrelation
withtheworld,buttheworldinitshistoricalnatureisconceivedassomethingthatis,as
“facts”,asHaydenWhiteasserts.10Realityinrealismisrepresentedpreciselywith
regardstothesocialmobilityinthehistoryofthe19thcentury.11
Realityinrealismisinotherwordssubjectedthroughtheformsofrealist
representationtoacertainconceptionofsocietyandtheindividual’srelationtoit.The
worldofrealismisthatofaworldthatunderstanditselfthroughhistory,andhistoryas
alossoftheoldworldorder,ofstablerelationsandofagiventruth.Itistheworldin
whichtheindividualmustgoouttofindhimselfandthereasonsoftheworld.Thegain
oftheinsightintothereasonsoftheworldinSocialistRealismwillnotbeas
unproblematicforthecharactersasitmightseem.
Thehistoricalsubjectofrealism
IntheTheoryoftheNovel(1914‐16),GeorgLukacsfurtherthematizesthestrange
relationinrealismbetweenaworldthatontheonehandseemsmorefluid,becauseof
thehistoryaftertheFrenchRevolution,andbecauseofthesubjectsproblematicrelation
toit,andthat,ontheother,appearsmorefirm,andfixedinthewaysofconceptualizing
it.Lukacsdoesnotsomuchdiscuss“modernrealism”ashediscussesthe“modern
novel”,anddoesnotanalyzetheproblemthatthenovelportrays,asmuchasthe
problemthatthenovelinitselfis.Heseesthemodernnovelasthereflectionofa
problematicmoderntime,inwhichmanhaslosthistranscendentalpointsof
10InTheFictionofNarrative,Whitefurtherwrites:“The“truth”oftherealisticnovel,then,was
measurablebytheextenttowhichitpermittedonetoseecealrythe“historicalworld”ofwhichitwasa
representation.Certaincharactersandeventsintherealisticnovelweremanifestly“invented”,rather
than“found”inthehistoricalrecord,tobesure,butthesefiguresmovedagainstandrealizedtheir
destiniesinaworldthatwas“real”becauseitwas“historical”,whichwastosay,giventoperceptioninthe
waythatnaturewas.(2010,P.170)
11Nabokovassertedinacontemptuouswaythat:“”(By)"realism,"ofcourse,Imerelyindicatewhatan
averagereaderinanaveragestateofcivilizationfeelsasconformingtoanaveragerealityoflife.”
(LecturesonRussianLiterature”).
orientation,inwhichhehaslostthe“starrysky”.Lukacshasanidealisticvisionofwhat
artshouldbe,andhowitshouldaddressits“shouldbe”,butunregardlessofthat,he
identifiesinterestingfeaturesinthewaythatrealismwhichistorepresentorthematize
reality,createsarealityandeducatesthereadersinacertainrelationtoit.
Themodernnovelistoclosetotheearth,andtheearthisthatofman‐madeworld,in
whichmanreflectsonanobjectiveworldas“apostulatetohimself”.12Nothingandno
meaningisgiventomaninthisworld,andthereforetheworldwillalwaysremaina
homelesshometohim,alwaysharbormaninhiswonders,inhisquestfororientationas
therelationofthesubjecttotheobject.Inotherwords,therealistnovelconfirmsits
ownpostulate:itpostulatesaworldthatcanonlybegiventomanthroughhisown
powersofcognitionandrepresentation,andthisworldwillalwaysbelimitedas
preciselytheonlyaspectsoflifethataregiventhroughthepowersofrepresentation.In
themodernnovel,hediscernsthestructureoftheBildungsroman,thatis,ofthesubject
comingtoawareness:
”Theinnerformofthenovelhasbeenunderstoodastheprocessoftheproblematic
individual’sjourneyingtowardshimself,theroadfromdullcaptivitywithinamerely
presentreality—arealitythatisheterogeneousinitselfandmeaninglesstothe
individual—towardsclearself‐recognition.”
12“Wehaveinventedtheproductivityofthespirit:thatiswhytheprimaevalimageshaveirrevocablylost
theirobjectiveself‐evidenceforus,andourthinkingfollowstheendlesspathofanapproximationthatis
neverfullyaccomplished.Wehaveinventedthecreationofforms:andthatiswhyeverythingthatfalls
fromourwearyanddespairinghandsmustalwaysbeincomplete.Wehavefoundtheonlytruesubstance
withinourselves:thatiswhywehavetoplaceanunbridgeablechasmbetweencognitionandaction,
betweensoulandcreatedstructure,betweenselfandworld,whyallsubstantialityhastobedispersedin
reflexivityonthefarsideofthatchasm;thatiswhyouressencehadtobecomeapostulateforourselves
andthuscreateastilldeeper,stillmoremenacingabyssbetweenusandourownselves.”
WhatLukacsshowsinthisworldwithoutmeaning,wherethesubjectislonely,and
thereisnostabilitytotheworldandnometaphysicsisthatthereisashouldinrealism,
awaythatrealismwantstoimposea“real”ontheworldandaffirmit.AsLukacswrites,
asthesubjectisreducedtohimselfandhispowerofcognitionandcreativityinthe
modernnovel,thereremainsa“shouldbe”intheimageofhisself‐recognition,his
“bildung”:“Whatheshoulddoorbeis,forhim,onlyapedagogicalquestion,an
expressionofthefactthathehasnotyetcomehome;itdoesnotyetexpresshisonly,
insurmountablerelationshipwiththesubstance.”13The“reality”ofrealismisarealityin
whichthesubjectneverreallycomeshome,anditisinterestingthatthishomeasano‐
homewillbecarriedovertotheSocialistrealistnovel.Itisarealitythatdoesnothavea
meaning,butattainsaclearviewonlifeinitsmeaningslessness,becausethatview
corroboratestheideaofarealityonaprocrusteanbed,explainedasanaked,firm
metaphysicswithlaw‐boundhistoricalandsocialrelations.14
Althoughthepartywillrepresentakindofendtothejourneythatthesubjecttravelsin
thenovel,anewtranscendentalhome,andatranscendentalfamily,thegainwillforthe
mostpartbetragicandmarkedbyaverystrangeconsciousnessofthishome.
13”Andwhocantellwhetherthefitnessoftheactiontotheessentialnatureofthesubject—theonlyguide
thatstillremains—reallytouchesupontheessence,whenthesubjecthasbecomeaphenomenon,an
objectuntoitself;whenhisinnermostandmostparticularessentialnatureappearstohimonlyasa
never‐ceasingdemandwrittenupontheimaginaryskyofthatwhich‘shouldbe’;whenthisinnermost
naturemustemergefromanunfathomablechasmwhichlieswithinthesubjecthimself,whenonlywhat
comesupfromthefurthermostdepthsishisessentialnature,andnoonecaneversoundorevenglimpse
thebottomofthosedepths?”
14ItisinterestingtothinkwithLukacsofDostoyevskynotasthegreatpsychologicalrealist,butasthe
greatestcriticofrealismwithinitsconfines.AsDostoyevskyassertedaboutmodernmanthathe”is
unhappy,becausehethinksheis”.
ThehistoricalsubjectandthehistoricalrealinSocialistRealism
ItisimportanttoconsiderSocialistRealismasmuchinrelationtothepositivevisionof
realitythatitproduced,asinrelationtothenegativeunderstandingofhistoryand
“reality”fromwhichitemerged.Accordingtoitshistoriography,historybeforethe
Revolutionwasthatofhardships,oferrings,alienation,unconsciousnessandmistakes.
Itwasarealitythatwasnotonlydoingwrong,butthatwasgoingwrong,andthat
neededaninterventiontobeamended.Theveryconceptofideologyimpliesthe
distortionofreality,andinparticular,ofhistoricalrealityinthehandsofpoliticsorthe
rulingclasses,andastheMarxistLefebvrewrote–themeansofovercomingtheway
thatideologymystifiesrealityistochange–history.Ofcourse,thepurposewiththe
RussianRevolutionwastochangehistory,overthrowbourgeoisideologyandundoits
alienationofthepeopleintheirlife‐practices.Wecanrephrasethepurposeasareturn
to“reality”,orareturntoameaningfulandnon‐alienatedengagementwithrealityinits
historicalnature.Thiscanalsobeseenasameansofundoingthe“homelessness”ofthe
modernrealistnovel,andofassertingSovietrealityasanewhome.Inaway,Socialist
RealismasthevehicleforthehistoricaltruthoftheSovietUnion,didnotassertthe
overcomingofreality,buttheovercomingofarealitythatSocialismhadquestioned,as
wellastheovercomingofthequestioningoftheverynotionofreality.BertholdBrecht,
whenobservingthecourseanddevelopmentofliteratureinSovietRussiainhis
conversationswithBenjaminassertedthat“thestruggleagainstideologyhasbecomea
newideology.”(AestheticsandPolitics,p.104)Perhaps,onecansaythatitwasbecause
“reality”asaguidingstarprevailedinSocialistRealism,becauseitwas“reality”inits
social,historicalandpoliticalaspectsthatSocialistRealismwasaimedatcatchingand
arrestinginitsdevelopment.
Asanengagementwithreality,SocialistRealismsoughttomakeitsvisionofhistoryin
itstruecoursefirm.AlthoughSocialistRealismwasaimedatcapturing“history”inits
dynamicform,orrather,perhapspreciselyforthatreason,SocialistRealismseemsto
haveledtoanarrestofaparticularunderstandingofandinstructionintohistoryina
paradoxicallyfixed“revolutionary”form.Inthehistoriographythatliesatthebasisof
SocialistRealism,thereisofcourseahistoryoftherelationtohistorythatfollowsthe
developmentandhistoryoftheSovietUnion.LargelyonecansaythatSocialistRealism
untiltheSecondWorldWarwaspreoccupiedwiththeRevolution,thecivilwarandthe
becomingoftheSovietstate.AftertheSecondWorldWar,thatwarwasapredominant
theme,butitisimportanttounderlinethatthereceptionoftheSecondWorldWar
mirroredthatoftheRevolution,andthatinboththeliteraturesoftheRevolutionandof
thewar,thetragicdestiniessufferedservedtomakefirmand“affirm”theSoviet
construction.OnecanseehowSocialistRealismassertsandtreatsthe“historicaltruth”
oftherevolution,inscribingitintothesocietytobe.
Onecouldobjectthatthereareonlyfiveyearsbetweenthefirstwritersunionandthe
outbreakoftheSecondWorldWar,butIfollowheretheofficialversionofcounting
workswritteninthespiritthatwastobeproclaimedin1934asSocialistRealism,
becausethedoctrinewasbasedwiththemasexamples.Forinstance,thenovelTheIron
Flood(1924)bySerafimovich,Chapaev(1923)byFurmanovandOptimisticTragedy
(1932)areallaboutthecivilwar.CementbyGladkovisaboutthefightaroundthe
buildingupofindustryafterthecivilwar.Allthesearetragicandconveythemany
lossestheheroeshadontheirrevolutionarypath.Allofthemseemtobeaimedto
convinceusofthetragicheroismofthepeopleandthefactthatitwasinspiteof,or
thankstothehardshipsinthesocietybothbeforeandaftertheRevolutionthatthetruth
oftheSovietpowerisbuilt.
MuchhavebeenwrittenaboutthesocialistrealistSovietnovel,itsstructureand
functions.Inherpath‐breakingstudyTheSovietNovel,Clarkshowedhowthenovel
almostasarite‐de‐passageperformsahistoricalandeducativepathfrom
unconsciousnesstoconsciousness,fromabatteredhometothefamilyhomeofthe
party.Thisisthepaththatexplainsthecourseofhistoryandthepathinwhichtheparty
wantedtoinstructitspeople.Ifwestepawayfromtheideaofanofficialdoctrine
determiningthenovelinitsfunction,wecandiscerninthesewritersanobsessionwith
theRevolutionasanexperience,andanexperiencethatledawayfrompre‐historytothe
historyoftheparty,butnotalwaysinaclearcutway.HowtointerprettheRevolution
anditstruthwasnotentirelygiveninthedoctrine,butratherbasedontheexpressions
oftheseearlynovels.
Thesocialistrealistheroistobeginwithaherointhesenseofaheroofwar.Ifthe
subjectofthemodernrealistnovelforthemostpartisanintelligentandeducated
personwhoseeksarelationshiptotheworld,thesubjectoftheSocialistrealistnovelis
thesimplemanofthepeoplewhoatthesametimeerrsinthemind,andyetasanatural
forceandbyhispracticalknowledgeknowswhattodo.ThisistheChapaevof
Furmanov,acommanderintheredarmy,whoisportrayedasanaturalgeniusover
againsttheredcommissarsenttoassisthim.Chapaevissimple,uneducated,hedoesnot
reallyknowhowtospeakwellandyetheconveyshiscommandsandspeecheswitha
firethatbyfaroutdoestheeducatedredcommissar.TheimageofChapaevisclear:in
hislackofknowledge,heknowsmore.Heisnotguidedbypettyorganizationalideasof
theparty,butinhissimplehearthecarriesthetruefireoftherevolution.AndChapaev
isnottheonlycharactertocarrythisidea.EveninthefamousnovelabouttheSecond
WorldWarbyAleksandrFadeevTheYoungGuard,(1946)thisthemewillresound.It
willalsobepresentintheimageofthesocialhero,animageofalifeatthemarginsof
Sovietrealityandprotestingagainstitbecauseofanideaofabetter,moretruthfullife.
Theheroistocombinetherealistnotionofareflectingsubjectandyetbeamanof
naturecarryinghisinnercompass,tellinghimwheretogoandleadinghimtothe
party.15Therehisperspectiveacquiresameaningfulroleinhistory.Hispathtorealityis
hispathtotheparty,andthispathisoftenfilledwithproblems,deceptionsandfights.
Inaway,theSocialistRealistnovelbothpreservesandinvertsthestructureofthe
realistvis‐à‐visitstreatmentoftherelationbetweenthesubjectand“reality”.It
corroboratesthe“problematic”natureoftherelationbetweenthesubjectandtheworld
intherealistnovel,althoughitseeksto“transcend”itorundoitbydemonstratingthe
forceofhistorythroughtheRevolutionanditsheroesinthepartyandamongstthe
people.Sovietpowerisportrayedasthehistoricalhome,buthomeisatthesametime
attainedandnot.Infact,thepartywasnotreallythehomeoftruth,buthomewasthe
historyandthefutureofSovietpowerinitsmaking.Thiswasnotade‐realizedreality,
butameansofusingandtransformingintoStatepropagandaacertainengagementwith
theproblemsofhistoricalreality.
15Thesynthesisofthespontaneity/consciousnessdebate