HarvardUkrainianStudies ,no. – (–): –.

WingstoLiftthe TruthUpHigh: The Role of Language forthe Shistdesiatnyky SA.B

IS HRUSSLU TH U US S of themostimportant and debated issuesamong theUkrainian shistdesiatnyky throughout thes. On one hand, language wasconsidered themostpowerfultoolofSovietnational and identity policies, on theother,itwasclearly central to theway the shistdesiat­ nyky expressed thecultural renovation they weretrying to accomplish.But the shistdesiatnyky did not addressthe two facets of thelanguage question separately(as political tool and means of cultural transmission). Instead, both facets wereclosely intertwined, as language emergedintheir reflections as one of themost(if not themost) importantcomponents of individual and collective identity. In spiteofthe mild liberalization of Khrushchev’sThaw,the Ukrainian language wasunder attack during thes: thenumber of publications in Ukrainian (bothbooks and periodicals) wasshrinking,and intellectuals lamentedthe increasing pressurefromparty officials to useRussian and to “Russify” Ukrainian. The cornerstone of theRussification efforts wasthe  education reform,whichallowedparents to choose thelanguage of their children’s instruction: as knowledge of Russian waspractically compulsory in order to study at auniversity and to getajob in Soviet institutions,even Ukrainian-speaking parentspreferred Russian over Ukrainian in thehopeof securing abetterfuturefor their children. Manyimportant Ukrainian intellec- tuals(suchasMaksymRyl´s´kyi,MykolaBazhan, Andrii Malyshko,and Oles´ Honchar) protestedagainst thelaw and askedfor it to be revised, but the CouncilofthePeople’sCommissars of theUkrainian Soviet Republicapproved Khrushchev’stext without modifications on  April.  

In this period the shistdesiatnyky werestudying at theuniversity or starting their first jobs:therefore, during their formative years as intellectuals,they were exposedtoaclear political will to RussifyUkraine. Nonetheless, they wereaware of areaction from theolder generation of intellectuals and from Ukrainian societyingeneral against Russification.

THLU  TRUH

Throughout theSovietUnion thecultural renaissanceofthe sand s coincidedwithastruggle against standardization and with therecoveryofthe role and importanceofthe individual self. Soviet nonconformist intellectuals reevaluated aset of valueslinked to thesingle individual that werebothpoliti- cal(freedom, equality,honesty) and humanistic (love, friendship, family). For theUkrainian shistdesiatnyky the anti-standardizing insistenceonthe singular “I” also entailedarecoveryofthe Ukrainian language. ManyRussian-speaking shistdesiatnyky decidedtostopusing Russian or,atleast,tostudy Ukrainian and use it whenever possible: thebrightest exampleswereAllaHors´kaand Leonid Pliushch. The preferencefor Ukrainian cannot be interpretedashatred toward Russian language and culture: as ayoung studentofMoscow’s Gorky Institute, Lina KostenkodefinedRussian as “alanguage of rarebeauty.”  One of thekey figures who expressed theimportanceoflanguage in the national debate wasIvanDziuba. Born in  toaUkrainian-speaking family in theStalino (now Donetsk) region, he learnedRussian because of theprev- alentRussian-speaking environmentand he definedhimselfas“bilingual.” He studiedRussian philology at thelocal university and in  wasadmittedas adoctoral studenttothe InstituteofLiteratureofthe AcademyofSciences of Kyiv,withadissertation about Mayakovsky’s satire(whichhenever defended). While in Stalino, however,hejoinedalocal newspaper and became interested in Ukrainian literature, beginning aprocess of “self-Ukrainization.” Despite hisacademic affiliation, in thesDziubabecame awell-knowncritic of Ukrainian literature.Inhis first book, meaningfully entitled An OrdinaryPer­ son or aPetty­Bourgeois,the language question emergedasanartistic ques- tion: Dziubareflected on theweakness of some novels in whichthe Ukrainian language wassopoorthatitnullifiedthe first task of Soviet literature,thatof educating theyouth. Dziubalamentedthe lack of plausibility of theyoung characters of Ukrainian prose and thestandardization of theplotsthatmade some novels verysimilar.Theheart of theproblem wasthe standardization of thelanguage (bothofthe entirenoveland of thedialoguewithin thenovel), whichthereforelostits capacity to portrayacharacterand to describehis inner world. The problem with theordinaryyoung characterwas that: S  H RUHUHH

In hiswords andmanners one canalwayscatch something false, something alien, unreliable. And each timeweprefersomebodyless looseand voluble but internally strong and pure. In life, thelanguage, thestyle of phrasing,the mannerofchatting,can reveal so much about aperson. In literature – even more! It adds to the spiritualenergy of people, portrays themorecharacteristic and valuable factors in one’slife. Amaincharacterwho is prosy, vain and ablabber will never winthe reader’s sympathy. Thatiswhy one so strongly desires that in literary works our Soviet youthwould speakatlastagenuine Ukrainian language, precise andexpressive, igneousand sparkling, poetic and charming, thelanguageofKotliarevs´kyiand Shevchenko, of LesiaUkraïnkaand Kotsiubyns´kyi,ofKvitka-Osnov’ianenko andOstap Vyshnia: so that in theend he would makehis appearance in literature as ayoung hero, whose expressions and wittywords could have wingsto reachthe youthand forceout thefoolish anddisgusting hybrid-speaking motionless characters and idlers,the so-called “stiliagi.”[…] It is time already to beginadecisive and broadstruggle forthe language cultureofthe youth, and in this struggleliterature,and especially “young” literature forand about theyouth, hastoplayadecisive role.

The language question thereforeemergedasanissue of artistic expression but,because of their Soviet education, Ukrainian shistdesiatnyky did not see literature as an end in itself. Theyreclaimedits role of civileducation, but felt this role could not be accomplished with thepoortoolofUkrainian language. Thisdesireand anxiety to perfectthe Ukrainian language emergedinmany shistdesiatnyky:Les´Taniuk,the soon-to-befounder of theClub of theCreative YouthofKyiv, wroteinhis diaryin: “Todayweneed to workonthe creation of an aristocratic Ukrainian language—for thedevelopmentofthe ‘language’ of Shel´menkoand even of thelanguage of anormal kolkhozofthe Poltava region.” Taniuk wished that one daythe Ukrainian spectatorcould laughwith thecharacteronthe theaterstage as an Englishman does watching Bernard ShaworanItalian with Eduardo de Filippo, while in Soviet theater, theaudience wasinsteadinvited to laughatthe character’slanguage. Forthe shistdesiatnyky,however,the language question also involvedthe sphereofcontent:impressed by the “sincerity”ofDudintsev’s NotbyBread Alone and shockedbythe revelations of Khrushchev’s “secret”speech,the shistdesiatnyky condemnedthe hypocrisy of Socialist Realism and longed foralanguage that wasable to graspreality and to tellthe truth. Russian was perceivedasthe language of Soviet bureaucracy, alanguage used to disguise reality.Ukrainian seemedinsteadfreer and moresuitable to express this new poetic.Among themanyverses dedicated to language and truth, thebest example is perhapsthe poem “My Language” by Vasyl´ Symonenko: 

Yougive thepoetstrong wings, To liftthe truthuphigh, Fortothe scholar yougentlyrevealed The wisdom of human depth. And your growth neverfades in one’slife, Blossoming in poemsand verses, Forinyou residesofagreat people The tender and dreamy soul.

The polysemy of thetitle of this poem(Ukrainian language but also thelan- guage of truth) wasnot coincidentaland constituted one of thekey points of the production of the shistdesiatnyky and of thecultural initiativestheyorganized in thefirst half of thes. One of the shistdesiatnyky’s main organizations wasthe Club of theCreative YouthofKyiv, foundedinasabranchofthe Komsomol. But other groups, likechoirs and literarygatherings, also contrib- uted to spreading theclimate of cultural renovation, usually under theaegis or with thepermission of theParty. Althoughtheyincreasingly occupiedpublic spacewiththeir initiatives, the shistdesiatnyky did not conceive their activity as being opposedtoSovietauthority,and believedthattheywerecontributing to thecreation of anew senseofcommunity (obshchestvennost´inRussian or hromadkist´inUkrainian) forthe renewalofSovietsociety. The revolutionary charge of this conception of thelanguage question wasthereforeattenuatedas long as theSovietleadership did not perceive it as athreatand waswilling to grantfreedom of speechand collaboration. During thefirst half of thes this temporarycooperation preventedthe shistdesiatnyky from pushing their reflections on theUkrainian national question and theresponsibility of the Soviet statefor thepoorcondition of Ukrainian culturetoits extreme. But the rise of Leonid Brezhnevtothe seat of General Secretary of theCommunist Partyroughly coincidedwithacrackdownonnonconformist intellectualsand freedom of speech: thefirst arrestsofUkrainian intellectuals and students occurred in  and theClub of theCreative Youthwas forcibly closed in . The shistdesiatnyky reacted by increasing their public commitmentand trying to help those hit by therepression: in this newclimate thefightfor a fair and public trial, forspreading thenewsabout thearrestsand thefateof thearrested(who werenot mentionedinthe officialpress), and forthe right to defenseoftheaccusedled the shistdesiatnyky to discover therealpolitical weight of their ideas.Truth and honesty could not be confinedtothe field of artistic expression, especially when one could be arrested forhis or her cultural commitment. Alongside theactivitiestoassist thearrested and their families, the shistdesiatnyky reflected on thenational characterofthe repressions and on therole of language in thenew political climate. S  H RUHUHH

THLU B

The mostture ma contribution to this second phase of theevolution of shist­ desiatnytstvo came from Dziuba, with hisfamous Internationalism or Russi­ fication? Thiswas aletter, widely circulated in theuncensored self-published literature (samvydav), writtentoPetro Shelest,Party Secretary in Ukraine, and to VolodymyrShcherbyts´kyi,Chairman of theCouncil of Ministers of Ukraine. Thispolitical pamphletwas welcomedbythe other shistdesiatnyky as thewords everyone had wanted but had beenunable to say. In ainter- view Dziubadeclaredthatthispiece of writing had atrifold task:first,hefelt theneed to show themistakes committedbySovietauthority inhandling thenational question from aMarxist pointofview, challenging theSoviet Union on itsown field. Dziubasaid: “It wasnecessarytospeak exactlythe same language, from thesame position. In away,wrecking thosestereotypes from within, filling them with acertain real, living meaning.”   Second, Dziuba wanted to explain therealdimension of national oppression to theRussians, and particularly theRussian-speaking intelligentsia:

Ihad to show those who asked: “Who is harassingyou,who is forbidding you to speakUkrainian?” that theviolencedid not consist of somebody standing with awhip and hitting you on theheadevery time, even if it waslikethatbefore. Russification had reachedsuchalevelthatitwas necessarytostopit. The mechanismworked, you only needed to startit andtolubricateit. The essenceofpoliticsisincreating theconditions to makeaperson do absolutelyvoluntarily whathehad to be forced to do before.

Finally,Dziubaaimedtospeak to Ukrainian youth, hoping to open their eyes to thereality of theSovietnationalitiespolicy: this letterwas abook-length polit- ical, historical, and sociologicalanalysisofthe practiceofnational politicsin Soviet Ukraine. Dziubainsisted on thedifferencesbetween Lenin’s and Stalin’s nationality policy, portraying theformer as astrenuousdefender of national differences from theattacks of Great-Russian chauvinism. Stalin waspresented as thetraitor of Lenin’s political heritage. Dziubadevoted alot of attention to describing how thefirst General Secretary appliedhimselftodestroying the resultsofthe sUkrainization effortand marking Ukrainian cultureas “counter-revolutionary.”Stalin’s Russification of Ukraine wasanti-Marxist,as it compoundedclass inequalitiesinsteadofremoving them:

And herethe national question again developsintoasocial one: we see that in city lifethe Ukrainian language is in acertain senseopposed as thelanguage of the “lower”strata of thepopulation (caretakers,maids,  

unskilledlaborers,newly hired workers [fromthe village], rank and file workers,especially in thesuburbs) to theRussian language as the language of the “higher”, “ moreeducated” strata of society(“captains of industry”, clerks andthe intelligentsia).… The language barrieraggravates andexacerbates socialdivisions.

Stalin’spolicyreinforced thetraditional division between theUkrainian coun- tryside and Russian-speaking citiesand transformeditintoasystemofclass exploitation. DziubaaddedthatRussian domination over Ukraine wasrealized throughthe repression of original artists, scientific cadres,and intellectuals (herehementionedParadzhanov and hisnewestfilm ShadowsofForgotten Ancestors). Another keyfeature of Russian imperialism wasthe banontrans- lations:thisway Ukraine remainedisolatedfromthe cultural evolution of the rest of theworld and allegedly unproductive. If thelanguage question wasan important componentofthe morehistoricalfirst part of this essay, itscon- ceptualcorewas thesection entitled “The Language Blockade”: hereDziuba showedhow theSoviets,throughthe marginalization of Ukrainian language, werecompromising thehealthy developmentofthe single individual as well as of Ukrainian societyasawhole.

Language is so intrinsically linked with thedeepest sourcesand most subtle manifestations of individual and socialspirituallifethatits renunciation, either by linguistic assimilation or amasstransition to another language, cannot occurwithout leaving some markonthe individual and on societyasawhole. It cannot fail to producecertain… disturbances that maybeimperceptible, but canintime produceindirect but,nonetheless,grave consequences andcomplications.… Forwith thelossofyournative language you lose an unfathomable world of the subconscious, youlose thewhole national psychologicalspiritualsubsoil, all theunderground springsand secretsofthe greatcollective soul, of the collective experienceofthe people.

ForDziubathe loss of language correspondedtothe loss of an entireculture in thebroader anthropologicalsense, with ill-omenedconsequences forboth singular andcollective identities. In addition, thelanguagequestiononceagain touchedonthe issue of truth: theSoviets presented their Russification policy under theguise of internationalism, as if it werethe consequenceofthe desire forassimilation by other nations.Russian wasthereforethe language of lies, alanguage whose words did not mean whattheyweresupposedto: hence thetitle of thepamphlet. Dziubaconnected this processoffalsification of the language with theuse of Russian by so manynon-native Russian speakers, whichcausedaprogressive denationalization and bureaucratization of Russian. S  H RUHUHH

Dziuba’sconcerns areunderstandable only within theparticular universeof valuesofthe shistdesiatnytstvo:the Russians wererunning theriskoflosing thecharacteristicsthatmade them humans,turning into anation of petty bourgeois(mishchany):

Potebnia, too, rightlysaidthatanation that assimilated dozens of other nations ceased to be itself andwould bring “theabomination of emptiness” upon itself. The first signs of this canalready be observed todayinsuchthings as theUnion-wide national vulgarity with its Philistine-bureaucratic cynicismand Volapük whichinvades present- dayvariety shows, television and amateur artinall theRepublicsand is advancingever moremassively toward allspheres of culture. But this is not theonlydevil.Thereisanother,nosmaller than the first.Ifdozens of nations in theUSSRare to lose theirlanguages and nationalities “voluntarily”—a verygreat deal of falsehoodand injustice will be necessary.

ForDziubathe moral impoverishment(throughthe impoverishmentofthe language) of theSovietman would compromise theconstruction of commu- nism, just as happenedinUkraine: thepolicyofUkrainization, whichinLenin’s perspective should have “Ukrainized” thepredominantlyRussian-speaking proletariat of Ukraine’scities, wasreversed by Stalinism, whichRussifiedthe Ukrainian peasantry. Dziubaproposedtosolve this problem throughautopian merger of socialism and nation, ajointpolicyofdemocratic centralism and voluntary Ukrainization. Thoughstill using theMarxist-Leninist vocabulary, Dziubawas asking formorefreedom and democracy:

And in this matter,the nationalitiesquestion, sooner or laterwewillhave to return to truth, we will have to return to Lenin, to Lenin’s nobility of mind and senseofjustice—to Lenin’s nationalitiespolicy.… At thesame time it is asimple matter(andextremely necessary) to avoidthatelement of administrative coercion and that “campaign”atmosphere whichquite understandably frightenmanypeople in theveryword “Ukrainization”. Aforced, official “Ukrainization”fromabove would only compromise Ukrainian cultureand language, especially when manypeople do not understand theneedfor it.… Ipropose to counterthis coercion with one thing only: freedom—freedom forthe honest,public discussion of national matters,freedom of national choice, freedom fornational self- knowledge, self-awareness and self-development. But firstand last comes freedom fordiscussion and disagreement.

In  Dziubastill hesitated to fully condemn theSovietUnion but,inthe   spirit of the shistdesiatnytstvo,was wary of top-downpoliciesand askedinstead forafreenationwide public debate over thenational question, whichwould lead to aspontaneousUkrainization. The forcerealizing this Ukrainization would be theyounger generation of students and workers coming from the Ukrainian countryside and moving to thecitiestoworkand study.

THLU  YUH

Dziuba’s Internationalism or Russification? did not produceany positive reac- tion from theUkrainian political leadership. The confrontation between the authoritiesand theactivists of theUkrainian cultural renaissanceescalated in thefollowing years:the contrast came close to arealclash when thepolice arrested five men in an attempttostopthe usualspontaneouscommemoration of thetransfer of TarasShevchenko’sremains on  May.Demonstrators against thearrest,led by thedoctorMykolaPlakhotniuk,marched towards thebuilding of theParty Central Committeeand protesteduntil two in the morning,when those arrested werereleased. Althoughsuccessful, theprotest involvedonly afew hundred people, mainly university students and young intellectuals:thisconfirmedthatthe real battlefield wasthatofyoutheducation. Consequently, Soviet authoritiescontinuedtoimprisonthe most “dangerous” elements,and to impose sanctions on anti-Soviet literature.Themostfamous victim of this literaryrepression wasOles´ Honchar,the presidentofthe Union of Ukrainian Writers,and his novel The Cathedral. Thisstory of ayoung man and hisvillage, fighting to avoid thedestruction of thelocal sixteenth- centurycathedral (representing theCossackheritage of Ukrainian culture), wasattackedfor being bourgeois-nationalist and forslandering theCommunist Party. Following thedevelopmentofthisliteraryand political case is beyond thescope of this study,but some of thebestreflections that originatedinthis debate directlyaddressed thelanguage question in Ukraine, especially in con- nection with theyouth. The first example is acommentonthe novelbyIevhen Sverstiuk entitled ACathedralinScaffoldings,whichcirculated widely in sam­ vydav.For Sverstiuk thebasic meaning of Honchar’s novelwas thesearchfor spiritualfoundations,the search forliving sourcesofhumaneness,and the deciphering of national traditions and valuestowhichapeople could hold to save their ownbeing and characterinthe shakyworld of standardization. The Soviet man wasundergoing aseriesofalienations:fromthe products of his work, from religion, customs,beliefs, and language. In particular,Sverstiuk could seethisprocess of alienation affecting theyoung Ukrainians who came to thecity in ordertostudy at university.Hefelttheywere “driven by alonging to reachwhattheyfind in books—spirituality,beauty,honor,decency, art, and people who assume dutiesand responsibilitiesfor matters that areofconcern S  H RUHUHH to thenation and to humanity.” These students wererejected by theurban environment, unless “they take on the‘city language.’… Thatiswhen they may become completelysevered from those rootswhichalone guaranteeorganic growth.” Sverstiuk used theexpression “city language,”suggesting acultural antagonism (Ukrainian individuality versus Soviet homogenization)more than anational one (Ukrainian versusRussian). The reason forthe clamor over (and therepression of)the novel The Cathedral layinits exposureofthe standardization and denationalization processes, whichthe Soviet leadership wasusing to trytoquell theUkrainian nation and itsyouth. An even moredirectdenunciation of theRussification campaignappeared in the samvydav in thesecond half of  with thetitle “Open Letterofthe Creative YouthofDnipropetrovsk.”This anonymousdocumentreportedthat localauthoritiesinthiscentral Ukrainian region wereusing thedebateover Honchar’s noveltocarry out further Russification of localcultural institutions andpublications.Theletterdenounced theelimination of Ukrainian language from theeducational system:

In connection with thecampaignofbespattering the Sobor [The Cathedral], thelocal KGBfunctionarieshaveenlivenedtheir “educational”workand againthe rumor startedbythemselvesabout “thenationalist danger”has beguntocrawl out.Itisridiculousevento saythatthis “nationalist danger”appearedprecisely in Dnipropetrovsk whereinacity with almost one million inhabitants thereisnot even one Ukrainian kindergarten or crèche, no completely Ukrainian school, no higher educational establishmentortechnical college with Ukrainian as thelanguage of instruction.

The lettercontinuedbyreporting multiple episodesofdiscrimination against Ukrainian speakers and Ukrainian culture, and claimedthe righttoprotect the historical heritage of theregion, quoting Marx’sand Lenin’s nationalitiespolicy. The author askedfor an end to thepersecution of “honest people, dedicated to their nation, only because they want to be themselvesand no one else.”  The young Ukrainiantel in lectuals thereforeknewverywellthatthe campaigns against Ukrainian bourgeoisnationalism wereinfactsteps toward afurther Russification of thecountryand identifiedaclear discrepancybetween the officialpolicyofsafeguarding all national cultures and thereality of theSoviet nationalitiespolicy. Afew monthsafter thedissemination of theletter, agroup of young Dnipropetrovskintellectuals,including Ivan Sokul´s´kyi,athirty- year-old poetwho had suffered from variousdiscriminations,was arrested and accusedofbeing theauthors of the “Letter.”Inatrial at thebeginning of ,the young activists werecondemnedtomanyyears of imprisonment, and avigorouspress campaigninthe localnewspapers attemptedtodiscredit the   group. The slander of theofficialpress wascontradictedbythe underground information: in theearly monthsof agroup of shistdesiatnyky,led by thejournalist Viacheslav Chornovil, had createdanillegaljournal entitled Ukraïns´kyi Visnyk (Ukrainian Herald), following theexample of similar alter- native underground publications in theRussian dissidentmovement, such as the Chronicle of Current Events.Chornovil decidedtoorganize and lead theediting of this illegaljournal in spiteofthe newgrowing repressions and those who believedthat “under suchconditions,engaging in underground activitieswas counter-productive, [and] it wasbettertolimit yourselftothe literary field andwait forbettertimes.” The task of Ukraïns´kyiVisnyk wasto provide theUkrainian public with at leastsome real information about what wasgoing on in thecountry. The second issue of thejournal, datedMay , dedicated considerable spacetothe Dnipropetrovskauthors of the “Letter,” publishing part of their writingsand reporting news about their repression. Mykola Plakhotniuk,the leader of theMay  demonstration, took on the task of explaining therealmeaning of the “Letter” and discrediting thepress campaign, whichhad definedSokul´s´kyi and theothers as bourgeoisnation- alistsand enemiesofRussian culture. Onceagain, in Plakhotniuk’s words one canfind theconfirmation that the shistdesiatnyky’s opposition to Russification wasnot an aversion to Russian language and culture, but arejection of the standardization and vulgarization of theSovietRussian language:

Loving their ownlanguageand Motherland, people likeI.Sokul´s´kyi andM.Kul´chyns´kyi know Russian language and culture, taking thebest from this culture.… You[thejournalistsofthe officialDniproptetrovsk press] aredefending not thelanguageofthe neighboring people, with whom we live in one single state, but thelanguageofRussian bureaucrats andchauvinists, whom V. I. Lenin stigmatizedbecause they vilely crawl in frontofthe powerfuland useviolenceagainstthe weak.Suchaslave, wroteLenin, “forexample, defines thesuffocation of Poland, Ukraine, etc. as the‘defenseofthe motherland’ofthe Great-Russians,suchaslave is atoady and lout,who provokes alegitimate feeling of indignation, scornand disgust.”

Even under thepressure of increasing repressions the shistdesiatnyky were able to distinguish between theRussian language of artand cultureand the Russian of Soviet authority,whichwas an instrumentfor impoverishing and subjugating other peoples. Another episode of impoverishmentthroughstandardization wasrecounted in thethirdissue of Visnyk,whichreportedthe debate openedbyanarticle by writer BorysAntonenko-Davydovychinthe issue of LiteraturnaUkraïna dated  November : it askedthe authoritiestoreadmit into theUkrainian S  H RUHUHH alphabetthe letter “ґ,” whichhad beeneliminatedinStalin’s times. The official debate wassoonsilenced,but it continuedinthe samvydav, and Visnyk tried to summarizeitefficiently. Thisaffair wasanimportant milestone in the Russification process: theUkrainian language possessesthe glottalfricative phoneme ɦ and thevelar plosive g,which, before thenormalization of orthog- raphyinthe swererepresented respectively with theletters гand ґ.The Russian language possessesonly thevelar plosive, writtenг,likethe Ukrainian glottalfricative. The deletion of theletter ґ informally invitedpeople to ignore thedifferencebetween thetwo soundsand exercisedpressuretowards the disappearanceofthe glottalfricative sound ɦ and itstransformation into the velarplosive g. Visnyk supportedthe battlefor thereintroduction of theletter ґ as abattlefor thepreservation of one of themostdistinctive particularities of Ukrainian phonetics.

LU SSR

The link between Ukrainian as acomponentofindividual and national iden- tity and Ukrainian as alanguage able to tellthe truthwas verystrong and had anotable effectonthe waythe shistdesiatnyky conceivedtheir role as intellectuals in Ukrainian society. To fully understand this link and thedebate within the shistdesiatnytstvo,itisnecessarytofocus on theworkofanother intellectualwho, morethan anyother,reflected on themechanisms of Soviet standardization: ValentynMoroz. Morozwas born in  to apeasantfamily and graduated in historyin  from Lviv University.Itwas therehealsomet hiswife, Raïsa Letverova, an ethnic Greekwho spokeUkrainian. Aftertheir graduation theMorozes livedfor acouple of years in asmall Volynian village and one year in Lutsk, working at thelocal university.Eventually they movedtoIvano-Frankivsk,not farfromthe Carpathian Mountains,wheretheydiscovered theexistenceof theHutsuls, one of themosttraditional and colorfulsubethnic groupsofthe Ukrainian nation. Theyfellinlove with Hutsul cultureand dedicated them- selvestostudying and cherishing it.TheMorozes usedtoreadsome of the verses from the shistdesiatnyky (suchasLina Kostenkoand Symonenko) that circulated in the samvydav,but they werenot acquaintedwiththe intellectual circles of thecapital or theClub of theCreative Youth. Because of hisstrong love forUkrainian culture, Morozwas arrested and accusedofanti-Soviet propagandaonSeptember  in thefirst wave of repressions.His wife wasthen contactedbythe shistdesiatnyky,who had learnedofthe arrests happening all over Ukraine and offered to help her. Morozwas sentenced to four years of imprisonmentand sent to agulag in theMordovianregion, whereUkrainian nationalistswereusually held. During hiscaptivity Moroz   wrote “ReportfromBeria’s Reservation,”whichdrewinspiration from camp reality and providedanexplanation of all Soviet reality.Inthisverycomplex piece,Moroz connected thehatredfor standardization and theneed fora rich spirituallife(typical elements of the shistdesiatnytstvo)tohis original interpretation of Soviet history. ForMoroz,Stalin wasapreserver of order: onceherose to power,hetried to keep it by suppressing anypotential sources of change, whichcomesfromindependentlythinking individuals:

The very nature of creativity is rooted in theunprecedented andin the unrepeatable,and thecarrier of thelatter is theindividual. Each individual consciousness embraces one facetofthe all-embracing, boundless existence, an unrepeatable facetwhichcan be reflected only by this particular individual and by no other.Themoreofthese facets of consciousness thereare,the morecomplete is ourpicture of theworld. Therein lies thevalue of theindividual; with thedisappearance of each individual pointofview, we irrevocably lose one of thepossibilities, and at thesame time one facetofthe million-faceted mosaic of thehuman spirit stops sparkling.

Stalin, likeall other “standardizers” of history, triedtodestroy this mosaic to keephis power throughorder:

Sincethe seed of all changesishidden in theuniqueness of theindividual, they at first trytostandardize him, to kill theoriginality within him. This cannot be achieved completely,but thedegreeofstandardization of the individual hasalwaysbeenthe measureofthe power of thebrakeatthe disposal of theforcesofstagnation.

Stalin, and theSovietleadership in general, thought that uniformity wasthe prerequisitefor unity,and thereforetried to destroy themanydifferenttruths held by individualstoestablish one single, superior truth. Thissingle truthtook theformofcensorship and therule of Socialist Realism, and pervadedevery sphereofexpression of human individuality,fromhistory to literature:Soviet truthhad thereforeturneditselfintoalie. The historianMoroz also noticed that thestandardization of thetwentieth century had become increasingly pervasive:

The twentieth centuryhas seen theemergenceofunprecedented controls over all aspectsofcommunity life, even family life. The entirecourseof aman’s life—fromthe cradle to thegrave—iscontrolled. Even leisure is standardized; evadingthe roundup fora“cultural excursion”tothe museumisproclaimed asin. Despotic formsbecome moreand more S  H RUHUHH

disgusting,and degenerate into Auschwitzes. In this some seeregression, “theend of theworld.”Actually, it provesthe opposite: despotism ceased to be theacceptednormofhuman relationshipsand must continually assert itself in order to survive.

ThoughMoroz did not use thewordtotalitarianism, histhinking widely reso- natedwiththe theories on totalitarianregimesthathemostlikelydiscussed in theMordoviancampwiththe other shistdesiatnyky and with thesurvivors of theOUN-UPA movements captured during WorldWar II.Moroz wasreleased from prisononly in , aftercompleting hissentence, and in spiteofthe impossibility of finding anormal job, he resumedwriting as soon as he could. In January he composedanarticle entitled “AChronicle of Resistance,” dedicated to thecenturies-long resistanceofthe Hutsulstohomogenization into larger imperialistic cultures.Indescribing theHutsuls’ resistance, Moroz identifiedother mechanisms of cultural standardization, demonstrating his attachmenttoindividuality and language. One of themostdangerousdrives toward homogenization, according to Moroz, came from mass tourism, aphe- nomenon that beganatthe dawn of thecentury but endedupcharacterizing Soviet mass cultureaswell. Morozdescribed theprocess of standardization of original cultures throughthe tourismindustryasfollows:

First came thetrialbytourists—esthetes andepicureans of art. They smothered morethanone flame of originality in manyparts of the world. Theywerefollowedbythe spirit of commercialism; theclimate of theunrepeatable waslost, as wasthatcertain aura.Artists beganto produceonorder from wealthy connoisseurs.Their workdeteriorated into mediocrity.Kosmachlivedthroughand withstoodthis.

The second weapon usedbythe Soviet leadership to homogenize Soviet peopleswerethe moreorlessspontaneousmovements of population that removedanindividual from hisnative cultureand transplantedhim into an internationalizedenvironment. In this,Moroz sawasurprising similarity to American culture:

Americaisachaotic mixture of manycultures.Americaisthe deculturalization of all elements who find themselvesinits melting pot. Russia, whichissounlikethe United States in all other respects,here goes hand-in-hand with it.Russiaisalso eclectic.… As in theUnited States,soalso in Russia, aperson with no roots does notconsider himselflacking in respectability;onthe contrary, he is proud of hisdetachmentfromtradition and of his “open-mindedness.” A person who is attached to some definitetraditions,bothhereand there,  

is considered “backward.” The sooneranItalian immigrantbecomes Americanized(in other words,forgets hislanguageand traditions),the greaterare hischances of being considered “respectable.” And so it is here: if you want to prove that youare “progressive,”you should forget your ancestryand become a “universal”person (in effect, aRussian).

Morozinterpreted theCold Waralso as aconflictbetween two concur- rent processes of cultural homogenization, and he did not consider either of them benevolently. In Moroz’swords therewas acertain fear of cultural contamination, and hisideaofculturewas somewhatfixedand static.Iagree with Szporluk that Morozisnot frightenedoftechnologicalchange, but the acknowledgmentofcultural evolution givesway to astrong conception of nation and of theduty to preserveitaspristinely as possible. It waswiththisconception of “cultural standardization”thatinFebruary  Moroz strongly attackedIvanDziuba: from July  thelatterhad been targeted by numerousslanderousattacks in theSovietpress that described him as atraitor.Dziubawas accusedofbeing anticommunist and of siding with theUkrainian nationalistswho during WorldWar II had collaboratedwith Hitler and laterescapedtothe United States.Because of these accusations, Dziubawas summonedfor atrial by theUnion of Ukrainian Writers and risked expulsion from theunion. Dziubawas convinced that intellectualswereabove thepolitical debate,even above theCold Warscenerythatdividedthe world, andthatonly by preserving this equidistancefrompolitical actors could an intellectualhopetoplayarole in civilsociety andallow truthtoeventually win out over thelies. But in order to preservehis position as public intellectual, he had to retain hisposition within theunion: this and perhapsother consid- erations induced him to revise hisstanceduring thehearing and to issue a statementofpartial recantation of hispreviouspositions. Thisstatementwas published by LiteraturnaUkraïna on January , introduced by acommentary that definedit“afirst step toward thecorrection of incorrect and unacceptable artistic conduct.”Dziubadistanced himselffrom theexploitation of hisworks in theWest, saying that he could not shareits anti-Soviet spirit.Worried about theaccusation of being amember of asecret society,Dziubastated:

ThereforeIbelieve it is necessarytorecallthat, as aSoviet literaryman, Iwas and am of Socialist persuasion, whichdoesnot shareanything with theideology of Ukrainian bourgeoisnationalism, nor with any othermisanthropic concepthostile to thepeople. Ihavealwaysfaced thenationality problems (aswellasany otherkindofproblem) from thepoint of view of theprinciplesofscientific communism, of thestudy of Marx-Engels-Lenin, considering theperspectivesoftheir successful S  H RUHUHH

solution with thefulfillmentofLenin’s intentions and theconstruction of communism.

Distancing himselffromso-calledbourgeoisnationalism, Dziubarejected the definition of “nationalist”for himselfonthe groundsthatherejected hatred forother peoplesand forinternationalist friendship:

Idonot accept thedenomination of “nationalist,” regardless of the meaning one maygive it,for Irelatewiththe deepest respecttoeach people and Idonot conceive of anypatriotism outside of theidealsof friendship and mutual understanding among peoples, outside of the problems and valuescommon to allmankind.

Dziubawas able to reject thevaluesofanationalistic ideology on thegrounds of theethicsofthe shistdesiatnytstvo,but theinterpretation of thestatement given by LiteraturnaUkraïna made these linesseemlikeabetrayalofthe movement: themeaning of each term, especially in theSovietpress,was not only itsliteral one. The statementcausedmuchsensation, especially among theother shistdesiatnyky.Chornovil published acommentinhis Ukraïns´kyi Visnyk summarizing thesituation:

The consciousUkrainian community evaluatedthe statementofI.Dziuba to thePresidium of theUnion of Writers in differentways. Some believed that Dziuba’saction wasright because,not having recanted hisworkor views, he hasremainedinthe Union of Writers;maybe he will now be able to publish,hewillmaintainanofficially moreweightyposition, etc. Others,especially theyoung,condemnedDziuba’sstatement, believing that under present Ukrainian circumstances,Dziuba’sauthorityasliterary critic and high-principledand steady civilactivistdid not granthim even theright to suchacompromise,thathedid not obtain anything except forthe temporarypreservation of hiscardasamember of theUnion, that they aregoing to requestfurther concessions from him; that Dziuba, attacking “nationalism,”forgot that he himselfiscalledanationalist,as well as those whothinklikehim, both at largeand inprison, completely ignoring their Marxist position, and that in certainsituations it is not ethical to attack those with whom onedoesnot agreeinprinciple.

From Chornovil’s commentary it is already clearthatthe question of Dziuba’s recantation had something to do with language, and with therelationship between signifiers and thesignifiedinthe Soviet context.This problem was directlyaddressedbyMoroz’s reappraisal of Dziuba’sstatement: in February  he wroteasamvydav article, “Amid theSnows,”whichcommentedon  

Dziuba’s statementand urgedhim to recant it.Moroz evaluated theinheritance of Stalinism: “Devaluation of thewordisthe underlying moral problem leftover from theStalinist period.”  Stalinism had provoked adeepfracture between theeveryday reality and thepropagandaofSocialist Realism. Thischaracteristic of Soviet society, this duplicity,was theoriginofmoral decadence, and of the incredulity of theaverage Soviet citizen:

No one believedinthe existenceofreality,nor in theobligations accepted by thecollective farm manager,nor in thecritic’s review of anew poem. Twoworldsevolved, one diametrically opposed to theother.One world wasmundane,lacking not only in heroism but even in basic decency. The other world existedincinemaand books,whereYoung Guardistssang ariasbeforethe mine shaftintowhichtheywould be thrown five minutes later. The Young Guardists—as everything else in this exaggerated world—werealso bound to become unreal.

Among theconcepts that became “fictitious” werethose of nation, mother- land, and patriotism, all frozen in thespiritualnihilism of Soviet culture. The salvation came from therenaissanceofthe shistdesiatnytstvo:

Into these cold ruins,wind-sweptofashes long ago, came thepoets of thesixties—“Symonenko’sgeneration.”Not all of their first works were invaluable and profound; yet, theirarrivalwas an epoch.They restored meaning to words andconcepts,and they renewedthe faithofthe people in the reality of thespiritualworld. Theirs wasagenuine feat:tohave faithinanatmosphereofcomplete nihilism, and rekindle that faithin others.

The Soviet regime repressedthe shistdesiatnyky and imprisonedthem in gulags, but this just turned them into martyrs of thetruth.According to Moroz, Soviet authority decidedtochange strategy:todefeatthe shistdesiatnyky,the regime threatenedthem, trying to obtain small recantations in exchange for preserving their access to officialpublishing.But even asmall recantation was enoughtodiscredit them, to demonstrate that even their words werevain propaganda:

Aperson’smoral stand todayismoreimportant than hisword. Words arenolongerbelieved, they havebeenterribly devalued. One’sword must be backedbyone’s position.… Howdangerousitisto regulate one’s voicesoasnot to be expelledfromthe Writers’ Union. Howmanytalents became “petty, banal, and declined” because of this logic: now Iamwriting forpublication; thetruth will come later. Life passed by,however,and thetruth was neverheard. S  H RUHUHH

Afterwriting InternationalismorRussification? Dziuba had become asymbol of those who werestruggling without compromise to tellthe truth, and his conduct, even morethan hiswords,stood as an example that some resistance to theSovietdouble falsification of language and reality waspossible. With his statement, Dziubahad betrayedthe truthand spoiledhis myth:

Now we hear: “Therewas one man of principle in Ukraine, and even he haswritten astatement.”This was preciselywhattheywanted: that Dzyuba poisonthe awakened faithand turn thepeople back into astate of dead nihilism.

Moreimportantly,Dziubasurrendered to Soviet pressureagainst thetruth of language: with hiscondemnation of nationalism and nationalists, Dziubahad accepted thefalse correspondencebetween signifier and signified, signing an unintendedadmission of guilt: “Dzyuba hasthe righttoview “nationalism” in anyway he wishes.But to speakout against it when everydecentperson is calledanationalist (including Dzyuba)—that Dzyuba hasnever done before.”  ForthisreasonMoroz urgedDziubatoacknowledge hismistakeand recant hisrecantation. Morozwas arrested again in June  and sentenced to four- teen years in alabor camp.Between Januaryand March many shistdesiat­ nyky werearrestedand interrogatedbythe KGB: most of them weresentenced to camp termsintrialsthattookplace until theend of . Afterone year ofimprisonmentDziubawas forced to writeasecond complete recantation of hiswork Internationalism or Russification? Althoughreleased, Dziubawas expelledbythe Writers’ Union and wasunable to publish anything until the years of Mikhail Gorbachev’sglasnost.Theshistdesiatnyky’s debate on the language question thus came to an abrupt end, but not before theUkrainian language had emergedasaunique elementofindividual and collective identity and as apowerfulmeans in thestruggle against thecultural impoverishment of Soviet standardization.

NS

. V. Chaplenko, “The Struggle againstthe Russification of theUkrainian Language,” Ukrainian Review ,no.  (Summer ): –;V.K.Baran, Ukraïna– ­khrr.:Evolutsiiatotalitarnoï systemy (Lviv: NANUkraïny,), ;O. H. Bazhan, “Narostanniaoporu rusyfikatsiï vUkraïnskiiRSR udruhii polovyni -kh–-khrr.,” Ukraïnskyi istorychnyi zhurnal, no.  (): . .Ryl´s´kyi’s andBazhan’s appeal appeared in Pravda on  December ;Malys- hko’sand Honchar’s letter to variousofficials is preserved in theTsentral´nyi Derzhavnyi Arkhiv-Muzei Literatury ta MystetstvaUkraïny,f.,op. ,spr. , ark. –.  

.Vladimir Shlapentokh, Soviet Intellectualsand Political Power:ThePost­StalinEra (London-NewYork: I. B. Tauris,), ;V.Zubok, Zhivago’s Children:TheLast RussianIntelligentsia (Cambridge, Mass.: BelknapPress, ), . .L.Tarnashyns´ka, Ukraïns´keshistdesiatnytstvo:Profili na tlipokolinnia (Kyiv: Smoloskyp, ), ;according to S. Yekelchyk, “The EarlysasaCultural Space: AMicrohistoryofUkraine’s Generation of Cultural Rebels,” Nationalities Papers ,no. (): ,the role of Hors´kawas central in theshifttoward national culture; on Hors´kasee also L. Ohnieva,ed., Alla Hors´ka: Dusha ukraïns´koho shistdesiatnytstva (Kyiv: Smoloskyp, ). .Fromthe poem “On theTrain” in Slovo molodykh: Al´manakh (Kyiv: Radians´kyi pys´mennyk,), . .Interview with Ivan Dziuba,  June . .Healso acknowledgedthe influenceoflocal intellectuals likeAndrii Klochchia, PavloBaidebura, andVolodymyrP’ianov; seeIvanDziuba, Spohadyirozdumyna finishnii priamii (Kyiv: Krynytsia, ), , . .IvanDziuba, “Zvychainaliudyna”chy mishchanyn:Literaturno­krytychni statti (Kyiv: Radians´kyi pys´mennyk,), –. All translations from Ukrainian aremine unless otherwise indicated. .L.Taniuk,, Zhyttia,vol. , Slovo, teatr,zhyttia (Kyiv: Al´terpres, ), ;Shel´­ menkoisacharacterinanotoriouspiece by Heorhii Kvitka-Osnov’ianenko;his language thererepresentsthe language of theatercharacters. .V.Symonenko, Poeziia,vol. , Spadshchyna (Kyiv: Vydavnychyidim “Personal,” ), . .S.A.Bellezza, “The shistdesiatnytstvo as aGroup of Friends: The kompaniia of the Club of theCreative YouthofKiev (–),” Snodi: Pubblici eprivati nella storia contemporanea,no.  (): –. .K.Loewenstein, “Obshchestvennost´ as aKey to Understanding Soviet Writers of thes: Moskovskii Literator,October –March ,” JournalofContem­ porary History ,no.  (July ): –. .Onthe arrestssee Viacheslav Chornovil, TheChornovil Papers (New York, McGraw-Hill, ). . Naspravdibulotak:Interv’iu Iuriia Zaitseva zIvanomDziuboiu (Lviv: Instytut Ukraïnoznavstvaim. Kryp’iakevycha NANUkraïny, ), . .Ibid. .IvanDzyuba [Dziuba], Internationalism or Russification? AStudy in the Soviet NationalitiesProblem, rd ed.(NewYork: MonadPress,), –. .Onthe complexrelation between Paradzhanov’s artand Ukrainian culture, see L. Briukhovets´ka, ed., Serhii Paradzhanov iUkraïna (Kyiv: Kyievo-Mohylians´ka Akademiia, ). .Dzyuba,Internationalism or Russification?,. .Ibid.,–;Oleksandr Potebnia wasanineteenth-century Ukrainian philologist who workedatKharkivUniversity. S  H RUHUHH

.Ibid., –. . The factshavebeenascertainedbyH.Kas´ianov, Nezhodni:ukraïns´kaintelihen­ tsiiavrusioporu –­khrokiv (Kyiv: Lybid´, ), –. .Honchar wasanacclaimed writerwho receivedthe Lenin Prizein;starting from January this novel was serialized by thejournal Vitchyzna;thoughquite impressionistic,the most thoroughreportonthe Cathedral case isV.Koval´, “‘Sobor’inavkolo n´oho,” Dnipro,no.  (April ): –. .Ievhen Sverstiuk, Clandestine Essays (Littleton,Colo.: Ukrainian Academic Press, ), . . “The Witches’Sabbath of theChauvinists: OpenLetterfromYoung Creative Intellectuals of Dnipropetrovsk,” Ukrainian Review ,no.  (Autumn ): . .Ibid., . .QuotefromChornovil’s interviewreportedinV.Chornovil, Ukraïns´kyi visnyk: vypuskyI–VI,vol. , Tvoryvdesiatytomakh (Kyiv: Smoloskyp, ), . . Ukraïns´kyi visnyk:vypuskI–IIsichen´ –traven´ (Paris andBaltimore, Persha Ukraïns´kaDrukarnia uFrantsiï-Smoloskyp,), . . Ukraïns´kyi visnyk: vypusk III:zhovten´ ,inChornovil, Tvory, :–; B. Antonenko-Davydovych, “Litera,zatakoiutuzhat´,” LiteraturnaUkraïna,  November;onthe historyofUkrainian language seeGeorgeY.Shevelov, The Ukrainian Language in theFirst Half of the Twentieth Century (­): ItsState andStatus (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUkrainian Research Institute, ),. .These factsare narrated in Raïsa’s book of memoirs;see R. Moroz, Protyvitru: Spohadydruzhynyukraïns´koho politv’iaznia (Lviv: Svichado, ). .Mordovia is aregioninRussia, southeastofMoscow,withalargeminority of Mordvins,aFinno-Ugric population; this camp had thetwofoldadvantage of keeping Ukrainians outside Ukraine and surroundedbyapopulation speaking an unknownlanguage. . ValentynMoroz, “Report from Beria’sReservation,”inMoroz, Boomerang: The WorksofValentynMoroz,ed. Yaroslav Bihun (Baltimore:Smoloskyp,),  (emphasisinthe original). .Ibid., –. .Ibid., –. .Valentyn Moroz, “AChronicle of Resistance,”inBoomerang,;inthe first sentence of thequote, “trial” is thetranslator’schoice forthe Ukrainian “випробування”; “ordeal”isperhaps better. Kosmachisthe village hometothe most numerous Hutsul community. .Ibid., . .Roman Szporluk, “ValentynMoroz:His Political IdeasinHistoricalPerspective,” CanadianSlavonic Papers ,no. (March ): . .Dziubaexpressed this positioninaninterview with aUkrainian journalpublished in Czechoslovakia, Nove Zhyttia,January, . 

.Bothquotes from theversion published in ShyrokemoreUkraïny: Dokumenty samvydavuzUkraïny (Paris andBaltimore:Persha Ukraïns´kaDrukarnia uFran- tsiï-Smoloskyp,), . . Ukraïns´kyi visnyk:vypuskI–II, –. .Valentyn Moroz, “Amid theSnows,”inBoomerang, . . Ibid., . .Ibid.,  (emphasisinthe original). .Ibid., ;the portion afterthe ellipsesisonp.. .Ibid., . .Ibid., .