Download File
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cultural Experimentation as Regulatory Mechanism in Response to Events of War and Revolution in Russia (1914-1940) Anita Tárnai Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Anita Tárnai All rights reserved ABSTRACT Cultural Experimentation as Regulatory Mechanism in Response to Events of War and Revolution in Russia (1914-1940) Anita Tárnai From 1914 to 1940 Russia lived through a series of traumatic events: World War I, the Bolshevik revolution, the Civil War, famine, and the Bolshevik and subsequently Stalinist terror. These events precipitated and facilitated a complete breakdown of the status quo associated with the tsarist regime and led to the emergence and eventual pervasive presence of a culture of violence propagated by the Bolshevik regime. This dissertation explores how the ongoing exposure to trauma impaired ordinary perception and everyday language use, which, in turn, informed literary language use in the writings of Viktor Shklovsky, the prominent Formalist theoretician, and of the avant-garde writer, Daniil Kharms. While trauma studies usually focus on the reconstructive and redeeming features of trauma narratives, I invite readers to explore the structural features of literary language and how these features parallel mechanisms of cognitive processing, established by medical research, that take place in the mind affected by traumatic encounters. Central to my analysis are Shklovsky’s memoir A Sentimental Journey and his early articles on the theory of prose “Art as Device” and “The Relationship between Devices of Plot Construction and General Devices of Style” and Daniil Karms’s theoretical writings on the concepts of “nothingness,” “circle,” and “zero,” and his prose work written in the 1930s. My analysis probes into various modes in which trauma can present itself in a text, in forms other than semantic content, and points to what distinguishes a modernist text from one written under the impairing conditions of trauma, despite their structural similarities. Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: The Impact of War Traumas on the Individual and Everyday Language Use I. The Historical Context (1914-1940) ........................................................................ 12 II.. The Effects of Trauma on Cognitive Processing and Language Use ...................... 29 Features of traumatic language use ...................................................................... 29 Possible roles of agency after the traumatic encounter ........................................ 39 Dissociation and content formation in trauma narratives .................................... 45 On the role of application .................................................................................... 51 Summary .............................................................................................................. 58 Chapter 2 Cultural Context: On the Competing Legacies of Modernity, Soviet Marxism, and Traumatic Conditioning I. Modernism: Its Conceptual Challenges and Language Experiments ....................... 61 II. Soviet Marxism: Trotsky on the Avant-Garde ........................................................ 72 Chapter 3 Viktor Shklovsky I. Trauma Research as a Theoretical Framework and Its Application to Literary Criticism ........................................................................................................................ 92 II. Shklovsky’s Memoir A Sentimental Journey in the Context of His Scholarship .. 106 III. Shklovsky’s Early Theory of Prose (1917-1919) ................................................. 126 “Art as Device" ....................................................................................................... 129 i “The Relationship between Devices of Plot Construction and General Devices of Style” ................................................................................................................................. 151 IV. Summary ............................................................................................................... 162 Chapter 4 Daniil Kharms I. Writing under Stalinism ......................................................................................... 165 II. On the role of method in Kharms’s Aesthetics ..................................................... 171 III. Registration of the world via "Purity of Order" ................................................... 181 IV. An experimental outline of the “Modus Vivendi” of Kharms’s method .............. 188 V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 207 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 209 ii Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been written without the support of Prof. Catharine Nepomnyashchy, who made sure that amidst life’s challenges I did not lose perspective of the importance of my professional pursuits. Her insight and enthusiasm for the ideas contained has been the most uplifting influence and source of strength I could resort to while writing. I also owe a thank you to Prof. Cathy Popkin and Prof. Jane Stanton for their invaluable editorial contribution and the unanticipated questions they raised. Lastly, I am forever indebted to the Department of Slavic Languages for having me in the program and providing me with such rare opportunity and context for personal growth, as they have throughout the years I spent there. iii To József, Zselyke, and Zsigmond iv Introduction “The continuous world is a world of vision. The discontinuous world is a world of recognition.”1 Shklovsky When Viktor Shklovsky, the eminent Formalist critic, wrote in 1923, “We have known no other way of life than that of war and revolution. It may be harming us, but we cannot escape it,” he spoke on behalf of a generation that had experienced three cataclysmic events in succession -- the First World War, the Bolshevik revolution, and the Civil War -- within a decade.2 Despite the traumas and other forms of stress inflicted on society and the individual by the direct experience with violence and with more subtle effects of the perpetual shift in key actors, agendas and values, there was still a remarkably vibrant cultural scene propagated by an unusually large number of very talented artists, thinkers coming together in Russia’s urban centers from all segments of society. They created a large body of work, commonly referred to as the Russian avant-garde, which no doubt can be considered one of the greatest contributions Russia made during the twentieth century to Western art and literary history and criticism. 1 Viktor Shklovsky, Literature and Cinematography, trans. Irina Masinovsky, intro. Richard Sheldon (Champaign and London: Dalkey Archive Press, 2008), 30. 2 Viktor Shklovsky, Zoo or Letters Not about Love, trans. and intro. Richard Sheldon (Chicago and Normal, Illinois: Dalkey Archive Press, 2001), 41. 1 It has often been claimed that, historically speaking, culture is a result of a surplus that civilization has produced at the cost of the self-effacing labor of the lower classes. What is implied here is that the emancipation of a group of men or a certain class (i.e. the artists and the intelligentsia) can only come into being when the basic needs of a society are met and there is a surplus produced that makes it possible for certain individuals or classes free from daily labor to occupy themselves with non-physical, mental labor only. This approach, while one cannot deny its historical validity, is commonly advocated amongst those who believe that socio-economic needs not only affect but also precede the human need for creative expression. While the bourgeois connections of the Russian urban intelligentsia (either in terms of social origin or acquired status or cultural connections) are beyond doubt, the example of the Russian avant- garde that flourished at a time—the 1910s-1930s in Russia—when life consisted mostly of a struggle to survive both in a physical and in a spiritual sense, casts doubt on the universality of this explanation. I shall also note that the Russian intelligentsia, and I would include artists in this category as well, has never enjoyed a secure position in society, and was subject to mistrust both from the Tsarist and from the Bolshevik regimes; thus, even in a socioeconomic sense, it occupied a marginal and marginalized position and benefited little from whatever material surplus was available. In that sense, the Russian intelligentsia, if we do not take into consideration the minority of individuals who were independently wealthy, could be defined more by its unmet needs than by those that were met. There are countless examples of artistic output generated under the harshest conditions when no surplus whatsoever was available in a material sense: literature conceived in the Holocaust or in forced labor camps in the Soviet Union, on slave plantations, under colonial and post-colonial conditions, during the siege of Sarajevo, and so on, all point to the fact that even 2 under extreme conditions it is possible to be artistically productive – that is, to generate a surplus in a cognitive and spiritual sense literally at death’s door. Moreover, it