DOCSLIB.ORG

Subjects of Freedom: Psychologists, Power and Politics in Postsocialist Russia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subjects of Freedom: Psychologists, Power and Politics in Postsocialist Russia SUBJECTS OF FREEDOM: PSYCHOLOGISTS, POWER AND POLITICS IN POSTSOCIALIST RUSSIA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE PROGRAM IN MODERN THOUGHT AND LITERATURE AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Tomas Matza June 2010 © 2010 by Tomas Antero Matza. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/ht219vj1183 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. James Ferguson, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Gregory Freidin I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Matthew Kohrman I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ALEXEI YURCHAK Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii ABSTRACT This study is an ethnography of Russia’s psychotherapy boom following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It inquires into the new subjectivities that have taken shape with the passing of the “New Soviet Man” and the dawn of a psychologized homo œconomicus. I draw on 14 months of fieldwork in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 2005- 2007 involving participant-observation in municipal and commercial organizations, textual and media analysis, oral history, and archival work. I explore how approaches in psychotherapy, marginalized after the 1930s in Soviet-Russia, have been welcomed back into state politics, combining with democratic and market reforms to enable a whole series of new governing projects. These projects extend from education policy to intimate relations in the family, and from the psychological development of children to self-improvement courses for Russia’s new middle class. The emergence of psycho- technical approaches to the self, I argue, is symptomatic of a broader shift in subjectivity following the collapse of the Soviet socialist order and the rise of capitalism, and offers an opportunity to study ethnographically the relationship between political transformation and “inner-transformation” as it concerns the practical ethics of “learning to be free.” The current popularity of psychological self-work can be traced to a late-Soviet interest in “humanizing” socialist institutions during the 1960s “thaw” and again during perestroika. During the 1990s, however, as psychologists and therapists were incorporated into state institutions and commercial organizations, the late-Soviet progressive interest in “humanization” has followed divergent pathways. In the iv marketplace, psychologists have been enrolled in the cultivation of Russia’s new elite, inciting a potential-filled, possessive individualism through the development of techniques of self-knowledge and self-esteem, entrepreneurialism and prudentialism. By contrast, in state institutions, resource constraints, audit and loose legal structures have squeezed their services into prophylaxis for the “problem child.” As symptoms of a post-Soviet governmentality, psychologists have thus become integrated into the production of classed subject-positions. This results not from therapist-intent or “the state,” but the way psychotherapeutic encounters are structured by biopolitical forces under capitalism. Psychologists and psychotherapists take a different view of the social and political effects of their work. Invoking the critique of the Soviet past as a way to give moral force to their efforts, they claim to be promoting social equality and “learning to be free” through the disruption of authoritarian social relations. Other practitioners invoke the critique of capitalist rationalization in order to argue that they are fostering social connection. These claims appear incongruent with the highly classed effects of their work and the way it is tied to projects of rule; I argue that it is precisely this incongruity that characterizes the politics of freedom in Russia today. Affiliated with both the unpopular neoliberal reforms of the 1990s, as well as the ongoing appeal of democracy with a small-d, “freedom” remains simultaneously a suspected term as well as a state of desire. This ambiguity is reflected in psychological work, which I suggest can be viewed as a post-Soviet practical ethics, where “inner transformation” and the pursuit of the “good life” is always mediated by state and market constraints. As a coda to communism’s “New Soviet Man,” what it means to be a “free” post-Soviet v subject is being filtered through new technoscientific visions of subjectivity that are themselves caught between the state politics of population and the commoditization of self-work. Through an attention to the “rule of experts” and their ethical practices, this dissertation offers insights into the constraints and possibilities entailed in “learning to be free.” vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a humbling experience to comprise the list of people who have given me the intellectual, moral, emotional and financial support for this project. Great thanks to James Ferguson, whose arrival at Stanford ignited my interest in questions of governance and subjectivity, and gave me that essential sense of reciprocated interest. His work continues to inspire me, and his guidance has helped me turn this project from an undifferentiated mass into something of which I feel quite proud. Matthew Kohrman has been an essential interlocutor, pushing me to clarify what I mean to say, and giving me confidence at all the right moments. I am grateful to Gregory Freidin for so diligently wading through my anthropologese, and especially for his no- nonsense feedback and unalloyed enthusiasm—upon receiving the former, you know the latter is the real deal. Finally, I am extremely grateful to Alexei Yurchak, who, despite having no formal commitment to advising me, has offered incredibly detailed readings of drafts, and so generously shared his time and great wisdom. Sylvia Yanagisako has, through our many stimulating meetings, helped me to understand what anthropology is all about, and how I might contribute something to it. Liisa Malkki continues to offer invaluable support, and her suggestions always push me beyond my frameworks. Thanks to Li Zhang who has become an amazing colleague and source of advice and help in recent years. Monika Greenleaf has also provided encouragement at crucial stages. I also thank Sepp Gumbrecht for his feedback and interest in my project. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Melissa Caldwell, Alexander Etkind, Akhil Gupta, David Holloway, Caroline Humphrey, vii Tanya Luhrmann, Purnima Mankekar, Henrietta Moore, David Palumbo-Liu and Lee Ross. These scholars have shown a collegiality that has helped me to feel part of a vibrant and generous scholarly community. Without the good-humored engagement of my graduate school colleagues, Stanford would have been a very different kind of place. I would like to thank Natalia Roudakova, who has been a wonderful friend, reader and confidant. Special thanks also to my co-conspirators in MTL, Steven Lee, Nirvana Tanoukhi and Ulka Anjaria, each of whom taught me a tremendous amount inside and outside the seminar room. I am grateful to have had Jocelyn Chua and Kevin O’Neill and as incisive readers, and once and future collaborators. Special thanks, too, to Zhanara Nauruzbayeva, who has always been a wonderful conversation partner on all things postsocialist. I am also indebted to Tania Ahmad, Lalaie Ameeriar, Nikhil Anand, Hannah Appel, Elif Babul, Mun Young Cho, Ramah McKay and Robert Samet, my “anthropology family,” all of whom have kept Stanford a light and sane place. The rigor and creativity of their work has inspired my own. Thanks to my Berkeley colleagues, Dace Dzenovska and Ivan Arenas, for their willingness to cross the Cal-Stanford divide. And finally, thanks to the members of my 2010 undergraduate seminar on the anthropology of postsocialism. Their engagement with these materials has helped me to clarify my own thinking. Numerous colleagues helped me while in the field. Zoia Soloveva continues to offer reality checks, and helped me settle into and navigate St. Petersburg when much was still new and confusing. I am also grateful to Natalia Kiselyova, whose listening ear was more essential than she probably knows. I am also so glad to have shared those crazy months in St. Petersburg with Derek Brower and Sandra Fach, and Emily viii Newman and Jon Platt. Our bond has undoubtedly been solidified by the experience of being new parents in that harsh winter of 2005-2006. It is unfortunate that I cannot thank my informants with their full names. Without their willingness to share their lives with me, there would not have been a project. Thanks to Tatiana and Sasha for being my first interviewee “guinea pigs,” and allowing me to keep returning with more questions and requests. Fedor and Masha became not just essential informants, but very good friends. Tamara, Diana and Leonid were generous and productively inquisitive, forcing me to think about what I was doing in their midst. I am grateful to Olga for her no-nonsense attitude and invitation to her training, and to Natalia for her kindness and for including me in her camp. Galya and Irina were incredibly kind, discussing their work with me, while also taking an interest in my family, living in exile on the Petrograd side.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'Mathematical Machines' of the Cold War: Soviet Computing, American
    Special Issue: Science in the Cold War ABSTRACT Soviet science in the post-WWII period was torn between two contradictory directives: to ‘overtake and surpass’ Western science, especially in defence-related fields; and to ‘criticize and destroy’ Western scholarship for its alleged ideological flaws. In response to this dilemma, Soviet scientists developed two opposite discursive strategies. While some scholars ‘ideologized’ science, translating scientific theories into a value-laden political language, others tried to ‘de-ideologize’ it by drawing a sharp line between ideology and the supposedly value-neutral, ‘objective’ content of science. This paper examines how early Soviet computing was shaped by the interplay of military and ideological forces, and affected by the attempts to ‘de-ideologize’ computers. The paper also suggests some important similarities in the impact of the Cold War on science and technology in the Soviet Union and the United States. Keywords computers, ideology, military technology, Russia, Soviet Union ‘Mathematical Machines’ of the Cold War: Soviet Computing, American Cybernetics and Ideological Disputes in the Early 1950s Slava Gerovitch In March 1954, researchers of the Mathematical Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Moscow were preparing a comprehensive book- length survey of the entire mathematical discipline, Mathematics, Its Con- tent, Methods, and Meaning. An Institute-wide ‘philosophy seminar’, whose mission was to instil the right ideological principles into the researchers’ minds, held a special session devoted to the discussion of a draft introduc- tion to the book. One of the discussants displayed heightened ideological vigilance, and proposed that the introduction should de-emphasize the contributions of American mathematicians.
    [Show full text]
  • Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man
    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses Spring 2019 Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man Sophie Y. Andarovna Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the European History Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Russian Literature Commons Recommended Citation Andarovna, Sophie Y., "Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man" (2019). All Master's Theses. 1201. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/1201 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BLOOD, WATER AND MARS: SOVIET SCIENCE AND THE ALCHEMY FOR A NEW MAN __________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ___________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts History ___________________________________ by Sophie Yennan Andarovna May 2019 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the thesis of Sophie Yennan Andarovna Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Roxanne Easley, Committee Chair ______________
    [Show full text]
  • Transformations and Survivals
    vidual contributions, the second mainly throughpublic activity and administration. The interestsand standardsof the two au- BOOK REVIEWSthorities have often conflicted, and this makesRussian science an interesting,even ideal, subjectfor socialhistory. LorenGraham has writtena book on the Transformationsand Survivals socialhistory of Russianscience, the aim of which is to providean introductionto the subject for a newcomer to it. I think it body the head of the Russiangovemment, serves that stated purpose,discussing in a Science in Russia and the Soviet Union. A whoeverit be at the moment. I am sorryto very simpleway severalkey issues, person- Short History. LOREN R. GRAHAM.Cambridge say that the most probableresponse would alities, and events. Instead of giving a University Press, New York, 1993. x, 321 pp. + be unanimousapproval. I wish that a pho- chronological narrative, it consists of a plates. $29.95 or ?30. Cambridge History of tographof such an enthusiasticproceeding, collection of essays on general featuresof Science. for instance of VyacheslavMolotov's elec- Russianscience, with impressiveand rich tion to honorarymembership in the Soviet factual details given in an appendix. The The book opens with a gallery of pictures of Academy of Sciences in 1946, had also book also reflectshow little of the subject famous Russian scientists, among them been includedso as to presentto the reader has been studiedand how many questions mythic founder Mikhail Lomonosov, ro- the other and equallyrepresentative face of and blank spots remain.
    [Show full text]
  • Suggestions for Thinking and Talking About Science and Religion from the Soviet Stephen M
    Article Suggestions for Thinking and Talking about Science and Religion from the Soviet Stephen M. Contakes Resonance Controversy, a Chemical Counterpoint to Lysenkoism Stephen M. Contakes and Garrett Johnson Garrett Johnson The Soviet resonance controversy was a chemical counterpart to Lysenkoism in which Soviet ideologues charged that Linus Pauling’s resonance concept was hostile to Marxism. We study it here to illustrate the role of social factors in science-faith dialogue. Because Soviet chemists were attentive to ideological dimensions of the controversy, they were not only willing to engage in public dialogue but also offered a response that decoupled the scientific aspects of resonance from ideological hostility, largely by modifying how they talked about delocalized chemical bonds. This enabled them to criticize and reject a pseudoscientific alternative to resonance and to avoid a Lysenko-like takeover of theoretical chemistry without threatening the wider Soviet social system. A potential lesson is that Christians in science who wish to promote fellow believers’ acceptance of their work would do well to account for the role of ideology in religiously motivated antimainstream science efforts. ne of us recently had the oppor- the images “may or may not be right” Otunity to examine a “creation- as they depended on two “big ‘ifs’”— based” physical science textbook the “correctness” of quantum theory and published by a Christian educational the “theory” governing electron flow ministry.1 Although the book used atoms between the STM probe and tip. to discuss matter, the author considered it important to point out that the scan- At first glance, these rhetorical dis- ning tunneling microscopy (STM) images missals seemed surprising given that commonly cited as evidence for their atoms, quantum mechanics, and theo- existence do not really show atoms.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Does Russia Have So Much Trouble Modernizing?
    1 Why Does Russia Have So Much Trouble Modernizing? An STS Approach Loren Graham, MIT and Harvard University I do not have to remind a group like this that trying to modernize is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, theme in Russian history. Going back to Peter the Great the idea of borrowing technology from the West and transferring it to Russia in the hopes that it would take roots has been a perennial theme. Peter tried it, Catherine the Great tried it, Alexander I and II tried it, Nicholas I and Count Witte tried it, Lenin and Stalin tried it (Remember “dognat i peregnat” [catch up and surpass the West]?) and now in post‐Soviet Russia Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin are trying it. Why is it so difficult for Russia? That is what I want to discuss today, basing myself on research I have done in recent years. This research will be presented soon in a book by me entitled “Lonely Ideas: Russia’s Trap.” At the moment Russia’s leaders are making a major effort to modernize, emphasizing that high technology is the key. The Russian government has asked my university, MIT, to help it create a new “silicon valley,” Skolkovo, near Moscow. Major Western companies, including Intel, Cisco, Siemens, Boeing, and Nokia are investing in facilities in Skolkovo. Unfortunately, Russia’s current leaders are making the same mistake that its past leaders have made, from Peter the Great onward: they have their eyes on the technology, not on the social and economic conditions that cause technology to flourish.
    [Show full text]
  • Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories Sociology of the Sciences
    FUNCTIONS AND USES OF DISCIPLINARY HISTORIES SOCIOLOGY OF THE SCIENCES A YEARBOOK Editorial Board: G. B6hme, Technische Hochschule, Darmstadt N. Elias, Universities of Leicester and Bielefeld Y. Elkana, The Van Leer Jerusalem Foundation, Jerusalem L. Graham, Massachusetts Institute of Technology R. Krohn, McGill University, Montreal W. Lepenies, Free University ofBerlin H. Martins, University of Oxford E. Mendelsohn, Harvard University H. Nowotny, European Centre for Social Welfare Training and Research, Vienna H. Rose, University ofBradford Claire Salomon-Bayet, University of Paris P. Weingart, University of Bielefeld R. D. Whitley, Manchester Business School, University ofManchester Managing Editor: R. D. Whitley VOLUME VII - 1983 FUNCTIONS AND USES OF DISCIPLINARY HISTORIES Edited by LOREN GRAHAM Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Program in Science, Technology and Society, Cambridge, Mass. 02139, U.S.A. WOLF LEPENIES Institut {iir Soziologie, Freie Universitdt Berlin and PETER WEINGART Fakultdt {iir Soziologie und Forschungsschwerpunkt Wissenschaftsforschung, Universitdt Bielefeld D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY A MEMBER OF THE KLUWER • ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS GROUP DORDRECHT/BOSTON/LANCASTER Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Functions and uses of disciplinary histories. (Sociology of the sciences; v. 7) Includes index. 1. Science-History. 2. Social sciences-History. 3. Classical philosophy-History. I. Graham, Loren R. II. Lepenies, Wolf. III. Weingart, Peter. IV. Series. Q125.F86 1983 907'.2 83-4588 ISBN-13: 978-90-277-1521-0 ISBN-13: 978-94-009-7035-9 001: 10.10071978-94-009-7035-9 Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, P.O. Box 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, Holland Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 190 Old Derby Street, Hingham, MA 02043, U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Loren Graham and Jean-Michel Kantor a Comparison of Two Cultural Approaches to Mathematics: France and Russia, 1890-19301 “
    1 Loren Graham and Jean-Michel Kantor A Comparison of Two Cultural Approaches to Mathematics: France and Russia, 1890-19301 “. das Wesen der Mathematik liegt gerade in ihrer Freiheit” Georg Cantor, 18832 Many people would like to know where new scientific ideas come from, and how they arise. This subject is of interest to scientists of course, historians and philosophers of science, psychologists, and many others. In the case of mathematics, new ideas often come in the form of new “mathematical objects:” groups, vector spaces, sets, etc. Some people think these new objects are invented in the brains of mathematicians; others believe they are in some sense discovered, perhaps in a platonistic world. We think it would be interesting to study how these questions have been confronted by two different groups of mathematicians working on the same problems at the same time, but in two contrasting cultural environments. Will the particular environment influence the way mathematicians in each of the two groups see their work, and perhaps even help them reach conclusions different from those of the other group? We are exploring this issue 2 in the period 1890-1930 in France and Russia on the subject of the birth of the descriptive theory of sets. In the Russian case we have found that a particular theological view – that of the “Name Worshippers” – played a role in the discussions of the nature of mathematics. The Russian mathematicians influenced by this theological viewpoint believed that they had greater freedom to create mathematical objects than did their French colleagues subscribing to rationalistic and secular principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideologically Correct Science
    Mark Walker (ed.), Science and Ideology: A Comparative History (London: Routledge, 2003), 35-65. 3 "IDEOLOGICALLY CORRECT" SCIENCE Michael Gordin, Walter Grunden, Mark Walker, and Zuoyue Wang1 Introduction The historical study of science and ideology is really a twentieth-century phenomenon, for it is only after the First World War that stark differences appeared in political ideology and regime: liberal capitalist democracy, Marxist- Leninist communism, fascism and National Socialism. Furthermore, as the introduction to this volume argues, this historiography has been profoundly influenced by the Cold War, with the result that certain themes have been dominant. This essay will investigate perhaps the most striking examples of science being influenced by ideology, which here will be called "ideologically- correct-science" (ICS). The French Revolution will be included because, as the above-mentioned introduction also describes, it was both the first case study for the interaction of science and ideology, and a surrogate for other Cold War case studies. Not all relevant types of ICS will be, or even could be covered here. Indeed, this article will sacrifice depth in favor of breadth and use the compara- tive approach in order to provide a suggestive analysis of science under different ideological regimes. Scholars have generally assumed that a political environment can influence science, but relatively little is known as to how this functioned in particular circumstances or across national boundaries. ICS refers to attempts by the state (or at least some representatives of, or forces within the state) to not only use science, but also to transform it into a more ideologically acceptable form, both with regard to scientific content and institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Epigenetics and Russia1
    Epigenetics and Russia1 LOREN GRAHAM Professor of History of Science, Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University pigenetics is a controversial but nonetheless booming field in biology worldwide. At the moment, the term is a buzzword that E not only is featured in many scientific journals but is also being celebrated widely and often inaccurately in popular media. Several years ago, the German magazine Der Spiegel featured epigenetics on its cover with the exaggerated announcement “Victory over Genes.”2 According to epigenetics, environmental influences, such as nutri- tion and stress, can cause changes in inheritance in organisms, and this changed inheritance can last several generations, maybe more. Such epigenetic changes are not based on alterations of the underlying DNA but instead on genes that are marked in such a way, often by methyl groups, that they are turned “on” or “off.” In other words, the genes are either expressed or not expressed in further development. One of the reasons why epigenetics is controversial is that it postu- lates that these genes are thus marked by experiences during the lives of individual organisms; therefore, it seems to revive the doctrine of the “inheritance of acquired characteristics,” a view often called “Lamarckism.” Lamarckism was seen as thoroughly discredited by most biologists in the twentieth century but now has some new supporters. A particularly infamous exponent of the inheritance of acquired characteristics in the twentieth century was Trofim Lysenko, the agron- omist who ruled Soviet biology for several decades. With Stalin’s support, he purged the field of his critics. Many well-known Russian biologists were fired, imprisoned, and sometimes even executed.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 4 (2016) Issue 8 Available for Subscribers Only $4.99
    RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORG VOL. 4 (2016) ISSUE 8 AVAILABLE FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY $4.99 | 31 | CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In an effort to become more competitive globally, Russian universities are attempting to reinvent themselves as new hubs of innovation and entre- 05. A plan for the growth of the preneurship. In this report, we take a closer look at what needs to be done knowledge economy in Russia to complete the transformation of the Russian university system. BY ALEXANDRA ENGOVATOVA AND The report examines the role of the modern university using the frame- EVGENY KUZNETSOV work of University 4.0, a paradigm for innovation and entrepreneurship developed by Russia’s National Technology Initiative (NTI). First and fore- 10. The process of Russian edu- most, Russian universities need to re-think the link between teaching and cational reforms is underway research. For too long, these functions have been separated, and that’s led BY GEORGY LAPTEV to an inability to commercialize new academic innovations, or to inspire students to launch new startups. 12. How universities can become Based on the real-world experience of Russian educational institutions more innovative and entrepre- that are at the forefront of the University 4.0 trend, the report analyzes neurial some of the specific changes that need to be made – such as the introduc- BY KENDRICK WHITE tion of a formal technology transfer office within each university – to encourage more partnerships between business and academia. 22. Interview with Loren Gra- Of course, creating the modern University 4.0 is harder than it sounds. For ham: Why Russia fails to mod- more than a decade, Russian university administrators have struggled with ernize its educational system ways to make their institutions more competitive globally, especially via BY PAVEL KOSHKIN international rankings.
    [Show full text]
  • Naming Infinity: a True Story of Religious Mysticism And
    Naming Infinity Naming Infinity A True Story of Religious Mysticism and Mathematical Creativity Loren Graham and Jean-Michel Kantor The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, En gland 2009 Copyright © 2009 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Graham, Loren R. Naming infinity : a true story of religious mysticism and mathematical creativity / Loren Graham and Jean-Michel Kantor. â p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-674-03293-4 (alk. paper) 1. Mathematics—Russia (Federation)—Religious aspects. 2. Mysticism—Russia (Federation) 3. Mathematics—Russia (Federation)—Philosophy. 4. Mathematics—France—Religious aspects. 5. Mathematics—France—Philosophy. 6. Set theory. I. Kantor, Jean-Michel. II. Title. QA27.R8G73 2009 510.947′0904—dc22â 2008041334 CONTENTS Introduction 1 1. Storming a Monastery 7 2. A Crisis in Mathematics 19 3. The French Trio: Borel, Lebesgue, Baire 33 4. The Russian Trio: Egorov, Luzin, Florensky 66 5. Russian Mathematics and Mysticism 91 6. The Legendary Lusitania 101 7. Fates of the Russian Trio 125 8. Lusitania and After 162 9. The Human in Mathematics, Then and Now 188 Appendix: Luzin’s Personal Archives 205 Notes 212 Acknowledgments 228 Index 231 ILLUSTRATIONS Framed photos of Dmitri Egorov and Pavel Florensky. Photographed by Loren Graham in the basement of the Church of St. Tatiana the Martyr, 2004. 4 Monastery of St. Pantaleimon, Mt. Athos, Greece. 8 Larger and larger circles with segment approaching straight line, as suggested by Nicholas of Cusa. 25 Cantor ternary set.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Scandals”: Soviet Readings of American Cybernetics in the Early Years of the Cold War
    “Russian Scandals”: Soviet Readings of American Cybernetics in the Early Years of the Cold War SLAVA GEROVITCH “Russian scandal” is a parlor game in which players sitting in a circle pass a message from one to another by whisper and finally observe how it has been transformed. In May 1913 a young British psychologist named Frederic Bartlett participated in a series of experiments on visual perception in the newly opened Laboratory of Experimental Psy- chology at Cambridge University. “I was fascinated,” he wrote, “by the variety of interpre- tations which different people then achieved, all of which they said they ‘saw,’ of the same diagrams and pictures” shown to them by the experimentalist.1 Dissatisfied with the ac- cepted “exact” experimental technique, which relied on recollection of lists of nonsense syllables, Bartlett was looking for a new method of studying human memory. He was convinced that memory was a social and cultural phenomenon and wanted cultural associa- tions and behavioral patterns to play a role in the experiment. At that moment, he met Norbert Wiener, a fresh eighteen-year-old Ph.D. from Harvard, who arrived in Cambridge to study mathematical logic with Bertrand Russell. Later Bartlett recalled: We became close friends and had tremendous arguments with one another. One day, when I had been talking about my experiments ... he said: “Couldn’t you do something with ‘Russian Scandal’ as we used to call it?” That was what led to the method I later called “The Method of Serial Reproduction,” one which, in varied form, was to contribute much to the final working out of my experiments.2 I wish to thank Loren Graham, Elizabeth Wood, the participants of the Russian/East-European History Workshop at Harvard University, and the anonymous reader of The Russian Review for their helpful suggestions and criticism.
    [Show full text]