The Changing Role of the Russian Writer

“It might be said without exaggeration that only in art and literature… does the intellectual consciousness of our [Russian] society find expression."- Nikolay Chernyshevsky, Russian Literary Critic and Journalist[1]

            Social criticism in Russian literature plays a unique role in Russian history. Whereas, in the rest of the Western world, literature can be rightly seen as only one of the many methods used by people to convey their ideas and criticisms about society and government, in Russia few other outlets existed for the expression of one’s views. The causes of this situation are mainly the large-scale oppression of intellectual thought by the Tzar’s and later Soviet governments, the lack of any formal institution, such as a parliament, for the intelligentsia to voice political and social grievances, and the overwhelmingly rural population of Russia spread across a truly vast country, which made literary works the best way to distribute complex ideas to the (albeit small) reading public.

            In this essay I will argue that the role of the writer in Russian society initially was that of a social and political critic, before it morphed into moral teaching from 1893 until the revolution. After the revolution, the writer essentially became a non-actor in Russian society, except as a source of propaganda for the ruling communist class.

Pre-Soviet Social Criticism in Russian Literature

            In the early 1830s and 40s, social criticism in literature came to Russia after the Westernizing reforms of Peter and Cathrine the Great as criticisms of the status quo. By the 1840s, it had matured, and had been adopted by the emerging intelligentsia, as the liberal (for Russian standards) ideology of the intelligentsia conflicted with the official Tzarist ideology of “autocracy, orthodoxy and nationality.”[2]

            Published in 1836, Peter Chaadaev was one of the first writers to openly criticize the government. In his First Philosophical Letter, Chaadaev attacked the backwardness of the Russian state and accused Russian culture and society of having no value. Demonstrating why writers were so cautious to voice political opinions as openly as Chaadaev, he was declared a madman by the state and the editor of Telescope (who published the letter) was exiled to Siberia.

            Following Chaadaev’s letter, there was a blossoming of intellectual culture in Russia-especially regarding criticism for the government and society. The literary critic Belinsky was a member of this growing movement, as one of the founders of the intelligentsia, and demonstrates the changing role of the writer in society. A member of the Romantic tradition and an adamant Westernizer, Belinsky emphasized emotion in conjunction with reason. His literary works were nearly always moral judgements, denouncing autocracy and serfdom.[3] He openly called for literature to serve as the protector for those unable to protect themselves, to expose the condition of peasants, women, and others oppressed by the Russian system who had not previously been included in Russian literature.[4] Trotsky commented on the importance of Belinsky, stating that “the historic role of.. [Belinsky] was to open a breathing hole into social life by means of literature. Literary criticism took the place of politics and was a preparation for it.”[5] Writers, as the only avenue for people wanting to express their dissatisfaction with the system, became a microcosm of all Russian intellectual thought, from political discourse to social critiques.

            The group that responded to Belisnky’s call became the realist movement of 1845-90. They used realism to expose the often-harsh realities of Russian life; both realism in the stylistic sense (fantastical elements were excluded, and a general cause-and-effect narrative was imposed) but also as a term of inclusion: ugly and undesirable parts of Russian life became commonplace in novels and other writings. For example, in Nikolai Gogol’s foundational work “The Overcoat,” the protagonist is treated poorly throughout the story because of his social class, with members of the higher classes ignoring his pleas for help.[6] In the story, the bureaucracy is portrayed as uncaring, corrupt, and the road for social advancement is all but barred, even to a capable and devoted worker. Despite his harsh portrayal of Russian life and biting social criticism, Gogol loved Russia, and often hinted at the possibility of a glorious revival of his native home.[7] Almost all Russian writers shared the same view: they criticized the regime and society to better both, essentially fulfilling their civic duty.

            But not all Russian writers played such a well-defined role. Some, like Tolstoy, became teachers, instructing people on how they ought to live their life. Early in his life, Tolstoy played a relatively normal role as a Russian writer, criticizing the society of Russia. In the Death of Ivan Ilyich, he attacks the Russian middle class, harassing them for their greed, selfishness, and uselessness.[8] Yet later in his life, Tolstoy became a moral teacher, preaching his personal version of Christianity to his followers through his writings. Tolstoy became an internationally recognized figure, whose influence was felt not only in Russian society, but all across the globe through people such as Gandhi and Martin Luthur King, who read his works. Other writers followed Tolstoy’s religious tone, and from 1893 until the Revolution Russian writing was dominated by symbolist poets who maintained close connections to a religious revival, leaving the role of the writer before the revolution as, essentially, moral teachers.[9]

The Writer During Soviet Realism

            After the revolution, the Bolsheviks usurpingly terminated the religious revival. They surprised all art forms but Socialist Realism, which essentially was the combination of two ideas that exist in stark contrast to each other: the perfection of communist Russia, and realism. Artists were forced, while people across the country were starving, to make works claiming to show the plenty that the soviet system generated. Under this system, a complete and total censorship apparatus grew, leaving any work that was not clearly within the bounds of socialist realism as an unpublished manuscript or samizdat, self-published. This environment caused the intelligentsia to turn inward, circulating works amongst themselves but very rarely having any impact on soviet society in general. Works such as Mikhail Bulgakov’s Heart of a Dog played a traditional role of social criticism but didn’t make an impact during their time; in the book, a scientist creates a human with the heart of a dog, but the dog largely reverts to its own nature, a metaphor for the Russians rejection of the New Soviet Man.

While the writers’ role in society would never return to its height during the age of realism, they still had a place. Nearly all the work produced during Socialist Realism, while interesting academic study, is frankly extremely boring and lacks personality, but they were effective propaganda pieces. In the role of propagandist, the writers that had been subjugated by the state did continue to have a role in society, but they had lost their distinctive streak, the personality and depth of characters that made Russian writing so unique.

Conclusion

            Russia’s first major writers first emerged after the Westernizing reforms of Emperor Peter the Great and Empress Cathrine the Great. They initially were social critics, with many works of literature bashing the political status quo of Russia. However, after Belinsky, Russian writers began to utilize realism to advocate for the little man who was unable to protect himself. They portrayed the harsh realities of Russian life in the peasant villages and early factories. In this role, they encouraged social change, and helped lead to the emancipation of the surfs. In around 1893, writers began to embrace moral teaching in their works, becoming preachers instructing their listeners in how to live their lives. After the revolution, this tradition was cut short, and Socialist Realism was introduced. Under Socialist Realism, very little work of any merit was produced, except for underground works which would not see the light of day nor wide readership until long after their creation. The writers of socialist realism were propagandists, who were essentially slaves to the will of the communist party, and Russian writers never recovered to their pre-soviet glory.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Gogol, Nikolay. 1842. “The Overcoat,” in The Portable Nineteenth-Century Russian Reader, 202-232. Penguin Classics, 1993.

Tolstoy, Leo. 1886. “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” in The Portable Nineteenth-Century Russian Reader, 440-489. Penguin Classics, 1993.

Secondary Sources

Gibian, George. The Portable Nineteenth-Century Russian Reader. New York, N.Y, U.S.A.: Penguin Books, 1993.

Jahn, Gary R. “Lesson 7.” University of Minnesota. Accessed December 1, 2023. http://lol-russ.umn.edu/hpgary/Russ3421/lesson7.htm.

Wellek, René. “The Essential Characteristics of Russian Literary Criticism.” Comparative Literature Studies 29, no. 2 (1992): 115–40.

[1] 1. René Wellek, “The Essential Characteristics of Russian Literary Criticism,” Comparative Literature Studies 29, no. 2 (1992): 115–40, 115.

[2] Ibid., 117.

[3] Gary R Jahn, “Lesson 7,” University of Minnesota, accessed December 1, 2023, http://lol-russ.umn.edu/hpgary/Russ3421/lesson7.htm.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Wellek, 119.

[6] Gogol, Nikolay. 1842. “The Overcoat,” in The Portable Nineteenth-Century Russian Reader, 202-232. Penguin Classics, 1993.

[7] George Gibian, The Portable Nineteenth-Century Russian Reader (New York, N.Y, U.S.A.: Penguin Books, 1993), 200.

[8] Tolstoy, Leo. 1886. “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” in The Portable Nineteenth-Century Russian Reader, 440-489. Penguin Classics, 1993.

[9] Wellek, 128