The beginning of Part Three opens with Krymov’s decommission as an officer on the Stalingrad front. As he is led into the bunker and is promptly asked to turn in his weapon and papers, a hopeless confusion and a feeling of personal injustice match his distinct surprise. In a sense, he is now free from the collective brutality of the Red Army, free from witnessing horrific, despicable, inhuman acts of war, free from fighting for a cause that he does not wholeheartedly believe in.
So why, then, does Grossman included the ominous ending line, “These words were no longer those of a free man.” (616)? What is he trying to say about how the totalitarian system operates, and how the freedom is valued and understood?
The following torture scene and breakdown in the Special Section at the Front HQ effectively illuminates the power and truth behind Grossman’s brooding, frightening statement on 616. The burdens of fear, uncertainty, paranoia, and mistrust have become agents of oppression and psychologically destruction. Krymov’s individualistic spirit has been utterly crushed, and has left him in a state of almost psychotic desperation. “He had become another being. Everything in him had to change. He had lost his freedom.” (617) In other words, Krymov’s identity has been erased. The things that made him who he was–thoughts, opinions, ideas, and attitudes– have all been stripped away. Because of his devotional hesitance concerning the ideals of Bolshevism, he is now to be conditioned to receive Leninist and Stalinist ideological understandings openly, and to adapt to them with absolute faith.
So why is this idea of changing the nature of man, of altering his personal sense of individuality and opinion, so essential to the success of totalitarianism as a utopian system? More importantly, how are the other major characters in the novel affected by this relentless political strictness, this oppressive inflexibility, as well as the attempts of the men in power to convert an entire nation into a universally accepted, sincere, unadulterated, idyllic Communist state?
Finally, I want to propose a question concerning Grossman’s repetition of the line “He had lost his freedom” (617, 618, etc) Why do you think he chose to repeat this line several times throughout this section of the novel? What is the significance of this repetition in the context of the central themes of the novel, and how does it apply to the lives of characters like Viktor, Lyudmila, Novikov, etc. as they continue to struggle with retrieving and reinventing their identity and individualistic spirit?
I look forward to your thoughts and insights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Totalitarian regimes erased individuality among the people so that they would have nothing that seperated them from the State. By doing this, the people believed that the only thing left for them was the State, thus explaining Krymov's despair when he was decommissioned from the army. Krymov believed that he needed the State to survive because it was the only thing that defined him. Totalitarianism made people believe that they were just one cog in the machine and that if they stepped out of line or broke the rules the State could just replace them with another cog. Totalitarianism needed the people and the State to become one and the same. This way if someone wanted to revolt against the State they would also be revolting against the people and this fact would discourage them from revolting thus ensuring the future of the State.
ReplyDeletein response to your question "So why is this idea of changing the nature of man, of altering his personal sense of individuality and opinion, so essential to the success of totalitarianism as a utopian system?: I believe the answer to this lies in Berlin's metaphore about the sheep and the wolves. Under a communist regieme one seeks absolute freedom for the sheep, killing off all of the wolves. to do this one must entirely destroy every trace of competition. Only by destroying the concept of competition can one hope to fully attain equality. Furthermore, it is important to note that if you permit some feeling towards competition, the society will be doomed as it takes only a few to take advantage of the society. In addition, it would not take much for a communist society to slip back towards more of a capitalist society as man seems to be naturally envious. if just one single person can get ahead through action done for the individual, he will coppy that action in hopes of achieving like ends.
ReplyDeleteI think Grossman writes that Krymov lost his freedom when he was decommisioned from the military because in many ways Soviet soldiers fighting in Stalingrad have more freedom than Russian civillians. As we have seen with the soldiers in House 6/I as well as the members of the fighter squadron in the Russian Air Force, soldiers are able to express themselves quite freely because they all need and rely on eachother, and would not turn on one another for petty disputes. I think the soldiers' freedom is pointed out when the comissar proposes a toast earlier in the novel. The soldier he drinks with dedicates the toast to his fellow soldiers, whereas the comissar dedicates the toast to Stalin. The toast shows that soldiers are free from the regulations of Stalinism, while civilians constantly live in fear of the government.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post, Evan. This is exactly what I expected.
ReplyDelete“These words were no longer those of a free man.” I think theses words hearken back to our previous discussion on moral relativism. In the book, these men have accepted their existence in the Stalinist state. They have accepted the forfeit of their intellectual liberties and fundamental rights as human beings. As we saw in the film, “The Lives of Others,” many civil workers in East Germany were not fundamentally evil people. They worked to feed a family or survive in a tumultuous world. They did what they needed to do to get by. Others, like Hempf, never changed. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was just as evil as he was when he worked of the Stasi. And others, like Weisler, were changed by the lives of others, the subjects of totalitarianism.
The loss of freedom is all relative to how strong of a will one has. Those who abandoned it did so because they had to. They had to survive. Others went against he grain of the oppressive communist regime and got punished for it. Were they anymore free than those who abided by the laws of the state? They still lived there under the same laws and still had the same restrictions if not more. What is Grossman’s definition of freedom? Consciousness of society and free thought? Or, the ability to act in the way one desires? Will one ever be free?
A Utopia requires a complete lack of individuality. Therefore, it can only be achieved if the state conditions and conforms all those who live within its borders. And to why the line’s repeated – repetition creates emphasis. Common literary technique. The idea that “He had lost his freedom” would be a mere face-slap otherwise; this way, it’s a nail being driven in with a hammer (Sorry about the imagery). Grossman finds it incredibly important that the price of a utopian society – or a failed utopian society like the USSR – is freedom nyaa!
ReplyDeleteEvan, first off as I type this, I am quite the emotional wreck. High school classes are now over. Wow. I met you in a class similar to Heubeck’s in 10th grade and we had some fun debates. Hopefully, you remember Carey BINGO! Anyway, back to commenting on your visionary vision.
ReplyDeleteYour final question really brings the whole novel’s point into the forefront. In other words, the constant repetition of the phrase, “He had lost his freedom” echoes the quantity affected by the regime. We read this phrase over and over so we understand that person after person suffered a loss of individuality. This is interesting because there is a bit of a dichotomy. It seems that by repeating this statement, the individual losing individuality becomes less important than the theme of loss of individuality in the novel and the country as a whole.
Did that make sense? Probably not. Better go back to thinking about leaving high school…
Even Evan earnestly exudes excellently enthusiastic educational erudition.
ReplyDeleteLike Ned, you address the issue of individuality within this communist system, focusing on Krymov. This, in turn, you linked to his freedom. Though such a connection might not be absolute, it nonetheless illustrates an important issue. As Andrew pointed out, the idea of freedom in a totalitarian society is nearly comical. Coupled with individuality, it is shear ludicrousy. Thus, Grossman’s Western idea of freedom is, as Andrew said, is almost pointless. In a society that aims to provide stability over freedom and community over individuality, Krymov’s situation becomes less meaningful and less of an existential crisis.
As communism is built on a seemingly paradoxical lack of competition, it is no wonder that other parts of the system reflect these apparently contradictory ideas. This is something that Ian touches on and is epitomized in Orwell’s famous quotation; “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”
Grossman states that "these words were no longer those of a free man" because Krymov has effectively lost his place of power and respect in government and military, and has now reverted to a member of the silent, oppressed commoner. He no longer has any influence on the course of government, and as such, he is no longer free to do as he chooses. He instead is at the mercy of the State, just like anyone else. Krymov's words, "It's. crazy. I don't understand. It must be a misunderstanding." reflect the innate unfairness and instability of such a fickle and impossible to satisfy government. There is nothing to understand. Krymov's life as a prevledged member of society are now over, there is no misunderstanding, it is as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteExemplary examples, Evan
ReplyDeleteI am quite sure that the freedom Grossman is referring to is the freedom of Krymov's mind. Here is a man that has dedicated himself to serving military, despite a couple of flaws he most certainly sees in the Soviet system (that cause him to get into some trouble ;-) ;-)
Now, he must deal with the fact that he has been rejected by the thing that he was forced to hold dear for decades- his own country. Perhaps now it will become hard for him to pretend he is faithful to his country, as he has done for many years.
Excellent post, Evan.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Grossman includes the line “These words were no longer those of a free man” (616) to show the reader the immensely dehumanizing effects of Stalinism. Krymov’s post as a commissar in the Red Army has acclimatized him to the overwhelming control of the Party. When he is decommissioned, Krymov loses his “freedom” under the Party—the luxurious benefits of being a commissar in the Red Army. Indeed, Grossman starkly depicts how the Party creates perfectly molded “cookie-cutter” officers that know nothing but the Party’s agenda. When Krymov is decommissioned, he loses his identity under the Party. Thus, when he remarks: “It’s crazy. I don’t understand. It must be a misunderstanding,” he has effectively lost all of his freedom to think rationally (616). Because he knows only the Party, his rejection from it leads to his frustration and despondency.
Grossman’s repetition of the line “He had lost his freedom”(617-618) simply reinforces the fact that Krymov has become wholly dependent on the Party for his emotional and physical well-being. Grossman also portrays Krymov in a flustered state: “He felt giddy…He would appeal to Shcherbakov, to the Central Committee! He would appeal to Molotov! He wouldn’t rest until that scoundrel of a lieutenant-colonel had been shot….Then Krymov felt the quagmire beneath his feet: a dark, gluey, bottomless swamp was sucking him in. He had come up against something insuperable, something more powerful than the German Panzer divisions. He had lost his freedom” (617-618). Consequently, Krymov is emotionally unstable as he realizes that he has been rejected from his post in the Red Army. The repetition of “he had lost his freedom” accentuates not only the decommissioning of Krymov from the Red Army, but also the release of Krymov from his servitude to the Party. This fact, however, is terrifying to Krymov as he does not know what he will do without the Party’s support. Krymov serves as the quintessential example of a brainwashed party member.
How can those not be the words of a free man? Perhaps because as a member of the regime, he had a twisted version of freedom as long as he stayed within the party lines. Valued members get benefits from the society, and maybe this is what Krymov associates with his freedom. Now, as an outsider of the party, he has lost his freedom. He is still within the society, but outside of the party which controls it. He does not escape the regime simply because he has been kicked out of the party. That makes him an outsider, and a target. The freedom he has lost was the safety and security of the state
ReplyDeleteEvan, your post speaks directly to something that i touched on in mine, the difference between the way a soldier perceives the totalitarian regiem that he serves and the way that a regular citizen struggles to remain under the radar. A soldier, because he is at the forefront of the cause is always on the move or engaged in some activity and therefore must do very little to remain inconspicuous whereas a man working in the relative quiet of a city must go out of his way to actively participate in certain things and know what not to say or do. In this way a soldier is more free than a regular citizen because he has the freedom to let go of rational thought and simply follow his fellow soldiers, whereas a "free man" under the rule of a totalitarian regiem must constantly think and remain tense so as not to make a mistake that may cost him his life.
ReplyDeleteI think Evan is onto something with his questions about freedom and the way Grossman writes about it. In the section I wrote about for my post, one of the key points Grossman makes happens when he has Viktor struggle with whether or not to make a confession and repentance even though he doesn’t believe he has done anything wrong. In Viktor’s discussion with Chepyzhin, Chepyzhin says, “The whole evolution of the living world has been a movement from a lesser to a greater degree of freedom. This is the very essence of evolution – the highest being is the one which has the most freedom.” (p. 690) So, when Krymov is humiliated and forced to absorb “education,” what Grossman means is that he has become less human and this means, like Evan points out, he has lost freedom.
ReplyDelete“He had become another being. Everything in him had to change. He had lost his freedom.” An easy analogy to the conformity called for in a general society, however especially in one where to be your own man was to be against the state. Essentially in this totalitarian regime, it was necessary to die to yourself before becoming “a part of the team”. Totalitarianism, as evidenced very well throughout the novel, is an institution that successfully frightens man into changing their own nature not only to adhere to the changing norm but to protect who they are. If that means dying so they can survive even if it is a world filled with strife and void of dignity, so be it. Point blank, “these words were no longer those of a free man” because to choose to be a free man would be to choose to die in vain with no mark left behind. But it was all too contradictory, allowing oneself to be torture and mutilated spiritual and psychologically so much so that even Krymov couldn’t recognize himself anymore. Every part of him had been replaced aside from the organs and a couple things on the outside.
ReplyDelete