Hello my fellow comrades,
Recently in class, we have been discussing the destruction of the individual: the effects a totalitarian government has on society, one that creates a uniform societal model, an ideal view of the world, which controls the fate of one’s life. In the book “Life and Fate,” Grossman leads us through a sequence of stories, like the fate of the Shtrum/Shapashnikov family and the life in the camps of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, which both shed light on this very idea. This theme directly relates to what we first were discussing earlier this fall. Berlin, along with ideas of Vico, warns us of the ideal path, the claim that there is only one means to an ultimate utopia.
“They fell into an uncomfortable silence. Viktor felt a shiver of fear, the fear that was always lurking in his heart – fear of the State’s anger, fear of being a victim of this anger that could crush a man and grind him to dust” (Grossman 569).
Here, Viktor feels an explicit unease between himself, his peace of mind, and this man, Pyotr Lavrentyevich. As we know by now, Grossman loves to insert many minor characters, adding deliberate tensions between them and the various protagonists. Similarly, on page 572, we learn of Anna Stepanovna’s dilemma at the Institute. Without much explanation, she was ordered to resign from the laboratory. She “saved the Institute. She looked after everything during the bombing. And now she’s being dismissed purely on administrative grounds” (573). Only separated by a few pages, we see two distinct examples of the Soviet State devalue the merits and worth of the individual.
Although this theme has been present in some of our previous discussions and readings prior to mine, I thought I would bring this specific dialogue to the fore. Near the end of chapter 53, I was caught by a particularly striking description of Kovchenko: “He bowed his head. He was no longer a professor, a doctor of science, a famous scientist who had made a remarkable discovery, a man who could be forthright and independent, arrogant and condescending. He was just a man with curly hair and a hooked nose, with a stooped back and narrow shoulders, screwing up his eyes as though he was expecting a blow on the cheek.” (575) According the Soviet State, Kovchenko is not a man of value, a man whose accomplishments should speak to his deserved status in society. In their minds, Kovchenko is no different from any other “stooped back[ed and] narrow shoulder[ed]” member of society. Kovchenko should not necessarily have all the ‘bells and whistles’ attached to his profession, but it becomes terribly apparent that he is not seen as an individual and a productive member of society.
My question to you all: where have we seen a similar destruction in the book so far, whether in this section of the book or in one preceding mine? How does Grossman use specific events and characters to develop this idea? I look forward to hearing what you all have to say!
Nedwin out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice post, Ned.
ReplyDeleteI think that this idea of the loss of individuality due to the implementation of a single celled system (the State) has been a prevalent issue throughout the novel, and it seems as though it will only become a greater, more insurmountable obstacle to the soldiers, scientists, minorities, and ordinary Soviet citizens as the novel progresses and the war continues. In order to maintain a totalitarian regime, it is essential that the party in power strip the individual of all that makes him feel unique and confident in himself. Only when this has effectively been accomplished can the political, social, and economic harmony promised by men like Hitler and Stalin ever become the reality. The universally demoralizing effect that this has on the populace creates a dependence on what the State has promised, and thus men, in their emotional desperation, devote themselves to the one thing that gives them hope, that gives them the sense of purpose once provided by the will and identity of the individual. We all know, however, that this desire to differentiate oneself, to survive not as a dominant, mindless collective but as a single soul, is inherent in every human being, and thus the most significant fault of totalitarianism is exposed.
It will be interesting to see how the characters deal with this loss of self, and if they are able to realize the underlying cause of their inner misery and torment.
I would say that this concept of distruction of the individual is omnipresent in the readings. this is very simply because it is one of, if not the, founding principal of communism. As you quoted, “he bowed his head. He was no longer a professor, a doctor of science, a famous scientist who had made a remarkable discovery, a man who could be forthright and independent, arrogant and condescending. He was just a man with curly hair and a hooked nose, with a stooped back and narrow shoulders, screwing up his eyes as though he was expecting a blow on the cheek.” (575)One's ability has nothing to do with his ranking in life because there is absolutley no emphasis on the individual. Everything you do must be done for the state, not the individual. Man has been broken down and forced into a totalitarian society by fear and, by agreeing to such conditions, they have lost any semblance of their individualism that they might have had.
ReplyDeleteI think the most poignant and important example of destruction of the individual is Lyudmila's personality change after burying Tolya. When Lyudmila comes back home, she is no longer argumentative, controlling, or selfish. Instead she silently does chores around the house, and acts like the ideal Soviet woman. Although the characteristics that Lyudmila lost are not particularly good traits, they made her an individual, and without them she is an Communist robot.
ReplyDeleteNed, I love the originality of your introduction: "Hello my fellow comrades." OH WAIT! THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL AT ALL considering like everyone has done that!
ReplyDeleteOther than that, excellent post.
Like Winnie the Pooh, I'm sitting in my thinking spot as I type. As the system maintains power, its ability to eradicate invdividualism only increases. In other words, the longer its in place, the more dangerous it becomes. This fact is mirrored in Grossman's novel "Life and Fate." (I don't know how to underline online). As the book progresses, we witness more and more characters becoming victims to this Totalitarian system. The book's extreme length may symbolize the extreme detrimental effects that this regime has on the individual.
Great quote Ned. I think Grossman here really captures what’s at the essence of control and persecution: fear. This fear is what causes people to die inside, to betray their individuality, their identity to escape what could potentially be dangerous enough to kill them. This fear is what causes people to doubt themselves and mollify any aversion or difference in views than the person and power possesses. The State is no different than Big Brother in 1984, causing people to self-persecute and correct for fear of being wrong by standards set by those above. Totalitarianism forces its victims into becoming confidence-less miserable beings with no real hope of revival. But even so, will one, just one see the sliver of hope that still exist? Will just one, maybe with power, maybe without, overcome his or her misery and realize that the power to live rather than merely survive is still theirs?
ReplyDeleteAnd hello to you as well, comrade. Having individualism crushed beneath the heel of Grossman’s plot – I mean, Communism – is not unique to this section. The entire book is full of it, although it might stand out a bit more than normally to Americans. Americans are from a super-individualist culture. And from a Soviet perspective, Kovchenko of course is not a man os outstanding value. He’s a vessel conditioned by the State. The State achieved those achievements, and any other human placed in his position would have done the same. Therefore, he merits no recognition.
ReplyDeleteNicely noted narrations, Ned
ReplyDeleteYour notion about the loss of individuality is an interesting topic and defiantly one that Grossman tries to address. However, I disagree with the idea that this somehow confined to the Soviet Union or even authoritarian nations. In our great and noble country, it seems as if everywhere we turn, there is the message to conform, to lose one’s identity. Be it in the ads that showcase what we are supposed to eat, wear, do, and think or simply the societal consensus that dictates acceptable behavior. Our society of consumers is becoming single minded, and small minded at that. In our daily lives, everything is being simplified from computer programs to the news. Though, like Andrew wrote, America seems like an individualistic culture, it is in fact merely an illusion. At be best, people try to be unique but this simply leaves them conforming to nonconformity. Yet, at least here we can watch TV, as opposed to having the TV watch us.
Throughout the entire book the idea of the individual has been destroyed. One case of this is when Grossman disusses the brenners. The brenners have to count how many jews that they have burned and buried in each grave and they just group all of the people they kill as jews. Totalitarianism destroys the individual by racial profiling and making you believe that you are part of the whole. This racial profiling helped make you feel like you were only a part of a group or whole and the totalitarian regimes did this especially with the jews.
ReplyDeleteThe ending of chapter 52 is particularly elucidating into the inner workings of the Soviet government. Kovchenko is clearly interfering with Viktor's ability to do work in his laboratory by imposing various restrictions on who he can and cannot hire to work with him. As a result, he theatens to leave the Institue because he's accutely aware of the fact that the expansion of scientific knowledge for the sake of learning is not at the top of Kovchenko or anyone else's interests - the war is clearly the ulterior motive. But Kovchenko simply counters with the fact that Viktor is not particularly unique; he is replaceable. Viktor enjoys science for the sake of science, but Kovchenko views his naive idealism as a "trifle." As such, Vikor (not Kovchenko ned, :D) no longer views himself as someone important or independent. He is merely a cog in the totalitarian machine.
ReplyDeleteNifty Notations, Ned
ReplyDeleteI agree with Killian and others that the idea of the individual has been destroyed throughout the book. Now, it is all about the state. Its destroyed, as Ian said, when Lyudmilla has to bury her son, its destroyed when Krymov publishes his works and is shunned for it, and again when characters like general Novikov and even Viktor find it impossible to speak what is on their minds. You can be a "scientist" and a "parent" but always, always, first and foremost you must be a Russian, and in that aspect every citizen must bow down to the face of nationalism.
Great post, Ned.
ReplyDeleteThe theme of losing one’s identity to the State is prevalent from the first page to the last page of the novel. Nyeudobnov, Novikov’s chief of staff, serves as a good example. He is such a blind devotee to Stalin that he has lost sight of what the true goals of the State are. Indeed, the State has dehumanized Nyeudobnov to such an extent that he has become just like the rest of the members of the Party “stooped back[ed and] narrow shoulder[ed].” The Party denies both Nyeudobnov and Kovchenko room to take pride in their accomplishments. This gripping control not only deemphasizes the accomplishments of both men, but also molds them into ideal Party members. Grossman shows the reader that once the Party takes control of your emotional mindset, it is hard to stray too far from the Party’s agenda. In the case of Nyeudobnov and Kovchenko, both men rigidly fall into the Soviet’s mold without ever acquiring any praise for their accomplishments. In negating the men’s accomplishments, Grossman depicts the faults of Stalinism as it can eventually strip a man of his pride—a pride that is sometimes humanly necessary to distinguish oneself among one’s environs.
I think that the oppression of the individual can prove to be more detrimental to the state than beneficial. It is true that the result is of such oppression is obedience, but you trade of this obedience for progression. For how they can these scientists progress in their field of study if there is no faith in their individual ideas. The state is in sum way a sum of its members, and it hurts itself when they remove individuals of talent from places of power. AN instance in the book that illustrates Ned's point is when Viktor is walking back to his house after having a free-discussion of ideas with his friends. He suddenly thought of a way to solve a scientific dilemma he was wrestling with, and he says " how strange...that this idea should have come to him when his mind was far away from anything to do with science, when the discussions that so excited him were those of free men, when his words and the words of his friends had been determined only by freedom, bitter freedom"
ReplyDeleteIndividualism versus Fear. The discussion over the reason for and the meaning of this losing battle has been brought up again and again in class and in these posts as is necessary I suppose considering that this was the main effect of Totalitarianism. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly tedious to talk about especially so many people have already mentioned the relevant points. However, I suppose that I could speak about something that pertains to my post. What I observed was that, because it is mostly the men that work in the soviet regiem, or have jobs that are more based in promotion, they are more susceptible to the fear that the state employs to control them because they are more vulnerable (in respect to losing their jobs). THerefore, the women do not immediately experience the spirit crushing affects of the impersonal regiem but rather have to wait for a singular staggering event. In Ludmila's case, this is the death of her son, Tolya, caused her to suddenly break apart from society and enter a world of her own. In this sense it is the women that are more negatively affected by the far reaching affects of the regiem.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing to me about totalitarianism’s destruction of the individual is to recognize that it is a weapon used by the state to gain and retain power. If the State has the power to define the worth of each individual, then the State literally has the power to bestow life and death, to be God. The State must destroy the individual, or have the power to do so. That is what happens to characters like Kovchenko, Krymov, and even Viktor. The State tells you that you have value one day and then takes it away the next. One day you are an important scientist and the next day you are a humiliated anti-Socialist. And it is all out of your control. In that kind of society, no sense exists. All are dependent on the State, which is exactly what the State wants.
ReplyDelete