CEU eTD Collection In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts the Dostoevsky Museum in St. Petersburg Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology Submitted to Central European University Making the Writer Visible: Supervisors: Alexandra Alexandra Kowalski Supervisors: Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Anna Boldyreva 2009 Daniel Monterescu CEU eTD Collection Key words credible. abstract notion as Dostoevsky’s genius personality visible and their statements about him such tools are the personal belongings of the writer, by means of which they make such an Museum Dostoevsky the of case In disposal. their at have workers museum that tools the from peculiarity ofthese practices comes not fromsome specific qualities ofa museum enterprise but approaching a museum as a set of practices performed by the people who work there. The suggests it Instead, sociologists. as museum aswell goers, andmuseum professionals museum This project challenges the traditional notion of a museum as a special place that is held by many : museum, material objects, personality, genius. Abstract i CEU eTD Collection Pushkin was sitting at his place thinking: "I am agenius, that’s ok. Gogol is a genius too. But Tolstoy is a genius as well; and Dostoevsky, may he rest in peace, - too! When will be the end to all this?" And at that moment it all ended. - Daniil Kharms - ii CEU eTD Collection eeecs...... 51 References Acknowledgements...... 50 Conclusion...... 48 4.3. museum Following managers...... 45 the 4.2. museum Following researchers...... 43 the 4.1. tourguides...... 39 Following the 4.0. Following founding the fathers...... 36 Chapter 4.Following the museum workers...... 36 ...... 30 3.2. Visualization awriter of 3.1. personalbelongings From to museum exhibits...... 27 Chapter 3.Making Dostoevsky Visible...... 27 2.1.5. Dostoevsky asan indisputable classic...... 24 2.1.4. Dostoevsky asa great writer...... 23 2.1.3. Dostoevsky asa reactionary writer...... 22 ...... 20 2.1.2. Dostoevsky asa revolutionary 2.1.1. Dostoevsky asa religious philosopher...... 19 2.1. Dostoevsky andhisfive posthumous incarnations...... 18 2.0. Methods...... 16 Chapter 2.Following Dostoevsky...... 16 1.2.2. What isamuseum?...... 12 1.2.1.is WhoDostoevsky?...... 10 1.2. De-mystifying Dostoevsky’s Tea...... 9 1.1. Firsttode-mystifyalaboratoryand thenrestthe of world...... 5 the 1.0. Mystification vs.de-mystification...... 4 1. Chapter Sociology as ade-mystification project...... 4 ...... 1 Introduction Contents iii CEU eTD Collection Philip Abrams put it (Abrams 1977). it (Abrams put Abrams Philip scientists can definitely be here of some help, since "the task of the sociologist is to demystify", as satisfied with themysterious evidences and references to the unobservable entities – social are not they reason strange some iffor but as itis; Museum Dostoevsky the enjoy to right a full have they spirits, with communication and experience in mystical interested are people if course, convincing other social actors that their work is not always useless. Notthis time, however. Of time we have to face doubta fact that anyone– the trulyglass believes Dostoevskyof is dead while his tea is obviouslythattea waiting for him onhis desk in his study room. I Dostoevskyis there. will SocialsomedayDostoevsky come scientistsand drink it. At thefact that is a well-known as it same thisanswer often accept hardly wecan However, novels. great died have hardmore time thanmake strong teaa andhundred take it to hisreasonable. study room,years where As hethe smoked, ago.visitorMuseum, walked mightIsaround this andthisknow, wrote hisforcansituationthe room, for whom isexample, there this glass of tea? Sincelead the visitors know they are in the Dostoevsky themfrom the to tourthenWouldbelieve it not be guide,an adequate question thennot to ask:Dostoevsky if no one isthat in the room anda no one can bit enter itbit used isstrangestrange? Dostoevskyto because from it. One can the see the room, but onecannotwho enter it as theway isdoor blocked by arope. It might look a drinksgate one can teaclearlystudy room, since one can see there a bookshelf,here. a chair and a massive desksee with some papers on a glass It ofseems tea standingfurther sooner or later they will come up tothedoor gate leading to what is obviously someone’s on the desk. expired bills and a clock constantly showing 8:36 PM. If the visitors walk around the place dares to enter it they might be On Kuznechnysurprised lane in St. Petersburg there is a place called the Dostoevsky Museum. If someone by the things they will find there: a hat in a glass box, Introduction 1 CEU eTD Collection rather thanmystic entities. Thisconceptual operationof de-mystification allows mefirstly to reflections of Michel Foucault and Bruno Latour enable metoapproach them as sets of practices I start by reassembling two common sense notions: Dostoevsky and Museum. Theoretical discussed in the next four chapters. workers contributed to the production of Dostoevsky? These are thequestions that will be What made the establishment ofthe new museum possible? And how have theactivities of its 1 my analysis brings meto the point when the new museum was opened in Leningrad his texts and the status of his legacy. It is by following this constantly changing Dostoevsky that in 1881 different actors have exchanged claims about the writer, thus negotiating the meanings of such but on its contribution to the production of statements about Dostoevsky. Since his death there is no natural divide between its insideThe present project problematizes the notion of a andmuseum as a special placeoutside. and claims that The focus here is not on a museum as political concerns from its outside. tends to be too quick in seeing theorder of display inside a museum as a mere reflection of the it Secondly, inside. happens special something as if it totreat research the guides propaganda transformation of the image ofa museum froma neutral institution tothecentre of ideological agenda ofthemuseum wasneglected, nowit has becomeoverestimated. Firstly, this quick enterprise (Macdonald 2006). This revelation resulted in thefact that if previously ideological value-free institution whose only purpose is to promote knowledge, but rather a highly political these issues triggered during the 1980s can beexplained by the revelation that museum is nota see what is displayed gave rise to many debates (Fyfe Such2006). questions as what is displayed in a museum,The whodecides greatwhat todisplay and who comes to academic enthusiasm that In the past decades the museum has become a mainstream topic in the sociological literature. The name of St. Petersburg between 1924-1991 2 1 in 1971. in CEU eTD Collection their claims about Dostoevsky’s personality and the secret of his creativity. disposal to convince their visitors. These tools are the material objects that they use to support validity of their claims. What makes their contribution peculiar is the tools that they have at their and museum workers participate in it along with many other actors convincing the others in the Dostoevsky production does not know the border between the inside and outside of a museum, workers make an abstract notion of Dostoevsky’s genius personality visible. I claim that has made possible. On the basis ofmy ethnographic observations I show how the museum of what happened when Dostoevsky and the Museum metin 1971 and what this new association activities pursued by the people who work there. Using this framework I tackle then thequestion the Russian history throughout the 20th century and then to analyze the Museum –as a result of delineate Dostoevsky asa series that ofstatements were produced indifferent circumstances of 3 CEU eTD Collection to see the explanations in those abstract entities, that themselves should be explained. The logic of mystification ofsocial life thus confuses explanans with explanandum, prompting us its manifestations. as happenings different the see to start then and dimension social ubiquitous invisible divinitiesscientist (an artist, or a lawyer) inside the society – something else (Latour 2005). As in case of the knowledge of what people do, as if ascientistin (oran artist, ora lawyer) does one thing and a the examplesee that everything that happens, happens inside the society; as if this inside-ness gives us surplus of Marx,the phenomena that escape all other disciplines. Fromfirstly this point of view, only sociologists can peoplethat time sociology has often been seen as a discipline that is able to explain the hidden aspects of invent an abstract notion of the sociologists in the end of the 19 ofthe end the in sociologists that can explain social aspects of everything else, comes, as he claims, from the attempts of the often used to account for the different phenomena. The idea that there are some social factors sociological literature. Bruno Latour points out that although this notion is very abstract, it is tendency to produce illusions and mystify the world is the usage ofthe notion of society in Fetishism is not the only illusion in the social sciences. Probably the most general example of the long as their producers stick to them and make them relevant for their interactions. This illusion prevents us from seeing that theabstract notions are present in social life only as firstly people create divine entities and then treat them as if they were autonomous (Marx 1992). commodities in terms of their inner qualities was as mysterious as the religious experience, whenanalysis ofcommodities can beseen as the first de-mystification project. For him seeing Probably the first to notice the tendency to mystify social life was Karl Marx, and in this sense his 1.0. Mystificationvs.de-mystification Chapter 1. Sociology as Chapter a de-mystificationproject th century to prove the peculiarity of their research domain. Since 4 CEU eTD Collection most rigorous attempt to de-mystify social life has developed from the field of sociology of the Probably 2007). (Kowalski to that illustration asan serve can studies state and movements social organizations, ascapitalism, sub-domains insuch turns called cultural so the of series The impulse to de-mystify has been very present in the sociological research recently. The whole 1.1. First to de-mystify a laboratory and then the rest of the world consists of looking closer at the local practices and negotiations that are empirically observable. means of the references to the abstract, often ambiguous notions, the project of de-mystification 2007). Thus, if under mystification Iunderstand the analytical operation of explaining things by concrete interactions that take place between the social actors much lower then the sky (Kowalski cultural construct is rather to transform itfrom the enigmatic entity that flies high above into the possession of marijuana would evidence that the state is not a fiction at all. To treat thatthe state as a the state is a (Steinmetzfiction. 1999). Tosay that the state is a notion created by social actors is not, however, to say Everyoneit happen' 'make themselves actors only that meaning construct, isacultural state of notion who has ever appliedTo break with the logic ofmystification in this case isfor toadmit that as every abstract notion, the a visa or has been arrested forlocal appearances were mere manifestations of this enigmatic entity (Abrams 1977). Instead of analyzing political practices as they are, some scholars tend to refer to the state, as if all not directed at each other but atthe state that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. is practice their that believe people makes it since life, political the elucidates than masks rather widely used both in politicalpolitical sociology. Philip Abrams drew our attention to the fact that though the notion ofstate is practice andAnother example of mystifyingpolitical the social world while trying to explain itcan be taken from the science as an ultimate point of reference, it 5 CEU eTD Collection show you". The counter-claim remains possible but the cost of its production increases, since increases, its production of cost the but possible remains counter-claim The you". show inscriptions at hand their producer can say to the interlocutor: "you doubt of what I say? I’ll the actor’s statements stronger because they are always there to support his claim. With the decide how to divide this part of the world among themselves. Secondly, the inscriptions make of land toVersailles and presenting it tothepeople who had never been there; so that they could the other places. For example, the map of the Sakhalin Island allowed taking this grandiose piece Firstly, they enable the humans to take things away from their original location and move them to possible. things several make devices trivial sight first at These amap. or a graph a diagram, that provides a visual display ofany sort in a scientific text" (Latour 1987:68). Itcan be a number, everybody else is what hecalls inscriptions – "any set-up, no matter what its size, nature and cost, everybody else, what they use while talking and convincing each other more often than like other each with interact scientists the though that was insights crucial Latour’s of One the actors involved. do this Latour, as well as other de-mystificators, focuses on the concrete practices performed by state, the notion of science does not explain anything but itself needs to be explained; in order to in understanding how the development of science has become possible. As in case ofsociety or place where some mutants with larger brains work (and thus mystifying it) does not get us further and we do take the medicinesthe results ofthescientific practicesin our everyday life: we dotaketheairplanes when wetravelwhen we are ill. The ideamean that laboratories produceis nothing special. It thatwould beridiculous toclaim that while using treating laboratory'scientific' was happening in the laboratory (Latour 1983).as By this, however, Latour does a not special there. As Latour summarizes the results of this project: "nothing extraordinary and nothing they do, go to the laboratory and see, using the ethnographic equipment, what they actually do suspend the authority of the scientists` self-descriptions and instead of listening to what they say science (e.g. Latour and Woolgar 1979). The starting point of this research in the 1970s was to 6 CEU eTD Collection they lend their steely quality to the constantly shifting interactions and make them thus durable why Latour insists that sociological analysis should not neglect the role of things in social life: and being enlisted to support someone’s statements they transmit to them their durability. That is difficult totalk them into this or that project. Secondly, the material things are able tolast longer, objects has two specific features. Firstly, the objects usually tend to bevery silent soit is not so last case is particularly interesting for the present project. Speaking on behalf of the material According to Latour, a spokesperson can represent the humans as well as the nonhumans. The 1987:73). (Latour represented" what the representative says is directly supported by the silent but eloquent presence of the convincing enough;their alliance, however, makes theclaim morecredible as "the solidity of without theinscriptions a spokesperson can only speak for himself that often cannot be read the meanings from it. Without aspokesperson the inscriptions cannot say anything and a situation when an actor speaks on behalf of something that everyone can see, but is not able to commentaries of those who produced them. Spokesperson is a notion that allows us todescribe notion ofa spokesperson. The problem with the inscriptions is that they can say nothing without Another conceptual device developed by Latour that is useful forthe present project is the possible. facts as a series of observable operations, interactions and instruments that made these facts Latour’s notion of inscription is useful as it allows us to approach the process of constructing this sense In validity. their about hasanydoubts ifhe incase dissenter by any reproduced to the inscriptions that they produce according to the number of operations, and that can be valid as long as everyone involved is convinced in it. In order to convince each other actors refer remains A statement 1986:13). (Latour ofafact status its preserves statement first the is done now one has to produce the counter-inscriptions that could support his counter-claim. Unless it 7 CEU eTD Collection differences in the objects, their intensification, repetition and stabilization (Yaneva 2003a). something artistically significant should be rather approached as a process of producing small elevated to the status of artwork though some sudden artistic or institutional gesture. Creation of Basing onthe microscopic ethnographic observations she claims that an ordinary object is not the production of a chalk Bruegel copy on the floor of fruitfulMusee for the de-mystification d`art ofthe creative activity, undertakenmoderne byYaneva in heranalysis of de la ville de Paris. This close attention to the material objects and the micro details of interactions proved to bealso owned (e.g. x-ray in the airport) (Linhardt 2008). asstate- devices material use the who actors the by is'included' state the inwhich situations through redirecting the focus from thestate itself (as some mysterious totality) to the local clichés usual the avoid to him allowed This protocol. method, asexperiment, notions 'scientific' the Red Army Fraction in 1970s. Forthe description of the 'political' events he used such effective tostep out ofit; this is what he did studying the conflict between the German state and science' and 'making politics' is a contingent one, and that for the sociological analysis it is more other domains. For example, Dominique Linhardt argues that the divide between 'making Recently what has shaped in the empirical (Latour contextand Callon 1982). of a laboratoryrecognize the king when hesits on a throne and a policeman –whenhas hehas his uniform on begun to spreadrenegotiate every social situation every time anew. How much easier it gets, outfor example, to in to do nothave them they with since social landscape; differentiated strongly and durable stable, relatively have to humans allow that things is it baboons; the from humans the differs what (Latour 2005). According to him, the ability toenroll the material objects into associations is 8 CEU eTD Collection notions in search for the clear explanations, discussed inthe previous sections. who is Dostoevsky and what is a Museum, keeping in mind the danger of referring to the abstract and Museum do not seem to clarify this situation, it becomes necessary to go back and ask again: someone who, as they know, will never drink it? As the common sense notions of Dostoevsky Dostoevsky’s tea a littlepeople do not normallybit drink tea at all. This line ofreasoning blurred,makes the clear picture of since why that usuallywould people do not drink tea right in the exhibition hall, and finally,museum we know that dead workers botherthe sociological imagination begins. Firstly, we knowto that Dostoevsky is dead,make secondly, we know tea for when perceived in their own terms, on their own territory. But where the common sense ends, suspicious toany quick answers and taken for granted knowledges. Both notions seem to be clear special place worthy to visit once in awhile. However, sociological discipline encourages us tobe knows that Dostoevsky is agreat writer and almost every urban citizen will say that museum is a At first sight the case of Dostoevsky’s tea in the museum is quite clear. Every Russian schoolchild 1.2. De-mystifyingDostoevsky’sTea work of social actors instead of smoke and mirrors. notions of the inscriptions and spokesperson, to the case of Dostoevsky’s tea in order tosee the the observable reality. languageThat allows us to think freshly about the usual phenomena andis opens up the new domains of why I find This itpractices. scientific studying fruitful for originally developed language the of potential analytical to apply the concept Thus, the researchof oriented towards de-mystificationLatour, (e.g. of the state or the creativity) proves the namely his 9 CEU eTD Collection for example, between "art for the common good", claiming that art should aim atimproving the of it. choices of the actors are already made and compactly packed in their habituses, though they can be not always 2 aware lifestyle forthe andhopes long-terms success alternative promotes poverty, lives in who artist, anavant-garde or class dominating the of between being a bourgeois artist, who writes, for example, for the theatre and enjoys the benefits made by its author among the available possibilities. Interms of social position a writer can chose positions given in thefield of literature. What make a creative project original are these choices is not a projection of an individual will, but the reaction to the different mental and social that redefines an enigmatic creator asthe agent ofthe literary field. A literary work for Bourdieu According to him, the abstract notion of a writer can bede-mystified with the concept of field genius." that drives him to write his texts. This is what Pierre Bourdieu called "the ideology of the man of creativity. An individual writer started to be perceived as aprimary source of creative imagination individuals who managed to escape from the utilitarian logic in favor of the spontaneous took on an aura of spirituality (Shiner 2001). True artists now were seen as the distinguished occupy the positions of hired workers and paid entertainers, the more the image of the ideal artist commercial expansion ofthat time. The more painters, musicians and writers were forced to routines. The development of this notion can be explained by the industrial revolution and access to the highest spheres of the universe, unavailable totheordinary people in their daily an has who individual an extraordinary as agenius appreciate usto taught has Romanticism ultimate center of the creative will that became especially distinct in the 19th century. asan author an of notion abstract the to refer we writer a great is Dostoevsky that Saying Dostoevsky? is Who 1.2.1. We should, however, exclude the naïve understanding of the nature of this choice. According to Bourdieu, all the 2 . Interms of mental position a writer can chose, 10 CEU eTD Collection number of texts appears as a coherentapproaches unit, it himis theas resulta function Foucault force, creative a secret with endowed individual asan ofauthor an treating of Instead the workof textdone bythat the criticscan be madeand visible by the linguisticproduce an author; since an author analysis.does not precede his works but results from them. If the transforms the question of how a writer produces texts into thequestion of how the texts principle within aparticular discursive formation. The operation of author redefinition as aclassifying an author see to proposed who 1969), (Foucault Foucault Michel by pursued redefine it as purposesa we need to do to the authorcultural what Abrams proposed to do to the state -that is to constructunnecessary and a toproduct haveHowever convincing the proposition of Barthes is, before this rather violent act, it woulda benot more of certaindetailed discourses. vision of whatsingle interpretation rooted inExactly the never fullyit clear intentions of its producer (Barthesis 1977). that thiswe are passions. That istask why heproposed to kill the authorgoing and liberate a text from the tyranny of the was to kill. or tastes his creator, its of experience individual just an than sources cultural numerous more For these Roland Barthes, who introduced this idea, text is atissue of different quotations coming from far individual creator and break the contingent link between the personal attributes and the texts. For The even more radical attempt to de-mystify a writer would be to suspend the notion of an observe the moves of an actor in his social environment and his relationships with other actors. idealism (Bourdieu 1993).through defining himself against both of the popular movements of that time -realism and Thus, for the de-mystificationshape. Forexample, Gustave Flaubertmanaged tocreateaunique positionliterature inthe field of isa through these choices,writer distinctions and position taking uniqueness of the creative project takes a la Bourdieu social life andwe "art for art", standing for the art thatneed intentionally has no other aim except itself. It to 11 CEU eTD Collection the positive image of a museum has been challenged by social scientists. In numerous studies it studies numerous In scientists. social by challenged been has amuseum of image positive the special place has firmly settled in the popular discourse. In the second half of the 20th century while proceeding through this social ritual ofgazing. Since then the myth of a museum being a Hedstrom 2002). That is why a museumthe gaze of the broad audience was meant tobea contribution to thecommonvisitor good (King and was encouraged tocollections of veryfeel different things used to belong to the noble few;a making themspecial accessible to awe and thrill as a museum would help people to educate themselves and organize their lives better. The rich the life of population on the principles of reason. It was believed that visiting such a special place The idea of public museum belongs to theEnlightenment project with its ambition to transform museum? a is What 1.2.2. to terms with the second question. practices that are empirically observable. Before proceeding in this direction we should first come situations. This, yet tentative answer, allows us todisperse Dostoevsky production into concrete following: Dostoevsky is aseries of statements produced by the actors in thevarious local Thus, the answer to the question "who is Dostoevsky?”the figure ofan author from the mystic realm back to the social life. deprivedworks or not(Foucault 1969).of The emphasis on these observableits practices allows us to smuggle mystical hiscollected of edition the into writer aspect, afamous of list laundry the include to as whether such is the meaningful unit of be constructed as a textsphilosopher, a poet or a mathematician. To have an autonomous and in the end, connectingthe and disconnectingcommentators different texts (this is what they do as a profession) the authorscholarshave who have collected can them under the author’s name. Depending on their operations of to make very concrete decisions, 12 CEU eTD Collection understand which references inform the individuals when they perceive and evaluate things that about heterotopias (Foucault 1988). To study this kind of programs is important if we want to he spoke Foucault when interested that was thisrationality it and rationality of form general and the behaviors of their observers – redefined. This kind ofprogram depends on much more gatherings ofthings were meant to be reorganized, the place where theywere kept –rearranged, centuries. The idea of an ordered space can beseen as aprogram, in terms of which the previous illustrated the transformation of knowledge structures that took place in Europe in the 17-18 He talked about it because place. as aspecific a assuch, museum wasnever research Foucault’s of thefocus that here, note the historical sensetransition museum is a heterotopia typical for modernity (Foucault 1967). However, it is important to from a cabinetaccumulated at the same place and perfectly ordered according to the ofrational principles. In this curiosities time",to emphasizing that theidea behinda this institutionmuseum was to have everything from the world lecture on this topic Foucault referred to a museum as "a place of all times that is itself outside of since they find support for it in the writings of Foucault and his concept of heterotopias. In his The abstract notion ofa museum as a special place remains valid in theeyes of many scholars mystification ofa museum. special some things does place special it asifthis treated and a museum of notion established the preserved to the1992). Problematizing the nature of a museumobjects and its role in asociety this research, however, Hopper-Greenhill 1978; Dimaggio 1991; Darbel und Bourdieu 1980; Wallach und Duncan and1991; people promoted self-discipline andserviced the panoptic state who(Bennett 1995; Fyfe 2006; Coombes cross new informationits and inspiring them for the independent intellectual adventures a museumjust borderdifferences in all possible coordinatesand – class, gender, ethnicity; instead of providing people with this iswas shown that instead of promised emancipation a museum justwhat reproduced the social I call the 13 CEU eTD Collection professionals doing their work. In order to answer what they do in the Dostoevsky Museum (not question – whattheir 'museum' activities than we sometimes tend to think.is The tentative answer to the second a museum?in freer much are see, we will as who, actors the following in mobile more become we museum, – is then the interactions of the actorsfollowing: involved. Having freed ourselves from the abstract notion of a museum is a result of the museum does not exist rather than to those in which it does" 3 those in which it does Abrams’s imperative and toattend to the senses in which a museum does notexist rather than to social world withMystifications often lead to simplifications,all while the counter-project enables us to approachits the complexities. That is the whyactors doing their work (Latour 1987). I believe thatthe mystics and todo herwork as a sociologist itusing the strategy promoted by Latour: to followis more fruitfulthe team-work. This redirection of the research focus allowed Yaneva toleave the mysterious to to follow happens there, but on the contrary as a by-product of the interactions of the actors involved in In her analysis she referred to the museum not as a place whose inner qualities can explain what uncertainties and controversies that the actors had to negotiate while installing it (Yaneva 2003b). was transformed from the trivial object to the museum-worthy exhibit through aseries of doing, turning a blind eye for a moment to the place where it happens. She showedactually are they what see to how inorder workers the and bustechnicians curators, artists, asthe actors such follow to suggested 2003b) (Yaneva Yaneva Albena Paris de Ville la de Moderne d`art Musee some first steps have already been made in this direction. In heranalysis of art installation held in There are not so many attempts to de-mystify a museum in the sociological literature;mentioned, if we are interested in what it is that happenshowever, in these local contexts. happen in the local contexts. They are, however, not ofmuch help, as Foucault himself "The task of the sociologist is to demystify; and in this context that means attending to the senses in which the state 3 . Bydoing this we move the focus from the place itself to the practices and (Abrams 1977) 14 CEU eTD Collection of the empirical material I have managed to collect. forgetting such a strange thing as a glass of tea for the dead writer) I will turn now to the analysis 15 CEU eTD Collection unnoticed. By the example of Yaneva (Yaneva 2003b) and the similar micro-oriented studies (e.g. wanted the visitor tonotice, what was noticed by the visitors themselves and what remained following school groups, individual visitors and by myself, trying to understand what a tour guide my ethnographic observations at theexhibition itself. Many times I went through the exhibition and museum issues in specialized magazines. A considerable part of my findings is also based on Dostoevsky on write regularly them of most as interviewees, my of materials published the with librarian and manager assistant. The information from our conversations I also supplemented of the museum life. Allinterested in theway Dostoevskyin is presented to the public and notinall the undercurrent streams I did fivewas I start the from since interviews: disadvantage it asaserious see to inclined am not I However, with the Iheard. wasall speeches ready-made often formal; director,rather be to happened efforts, my of in spite top manager,interest and readilyresearcher, told me about their activities. Though Ihave to admit that our conversations, It was not a big problem to get access to the field: developingmost institution, not a stagnant remnant ofof the past. the workers sympathizedinteresting for my research. It was important for me to besure that Iwas dealing with an actively with my something on. This intense program and their ambitions to beinnovative made this case chance that some event of the Dostoevsky museum will be mentioned there, as they always have one of the most successfulHermitage enterprises. or the State Russian If one Museum. takessmall one andHowever, has no pretensions of entering the higha league of looksuch museum giantsamong as the atmuseums a local of its genremagazine, itThe is knownmain asthere site is a ofgreat my research was the 2.0. Methods Dostoevsky Museum in St. Petersburg. It is a relatively Chapter 2. Following Dostoevsky Chapter 16 CEU eTD Collection the actors as the important landmarks. Chapter 2 is based on the analysis of this material. articles about Dostoevsky fromthe popular and more specialized pressthatwere referred to by Soviet Union. This more general topic forced me to leave the museum for a while and gather the Petersburg was animportant moment in the history of reception of Dostoevsky’s writings in the From the stories of my intervieweesthe heart of the Chapter 3and 4. museumI understood in St. Petersburg that I had a chancedid notbring me anything substantially to new, Idecidedthat toleaveobserve it out and focus only onthe myself. the This is theopening materialpatterns that of bothlies theat Moscowof and theSt. Petersburg openedMuseum museums in 1928. were the same.However,in As the St.Moscow him in 1921.analyzing Chronologically thenextcase point was the Dostoevsky Museum in Moscow that the material calledon the history of exhibiting Dostoevskyit starting with thefirstI memorialrealized exhibition devoted to that the logicmuseum subfield. To understand how this logic works in practiceand I reconstructed what can be the display this of know-hows and tips different discussed that professionals museum for the written To understand the logic of a memorialsuch as Dostoevsky’s wardrobe and icon. exhibitionfrom as thea genre guidebooks I turned fromonly few articles focused on the museum history, sodifferent Iadded this materialto with the information the different years smalland articlesfor-insiders-only essays on the museumseparateunderstand library, items I was whatable of tothe broughtcollect collection,Observing the allnecessary thesethe presentmaterial. things exhibitionThere together. were I developed Having gotan hidden interest I aimed atpermission zooming in on what seemed to be obvious and natural. in the tohistory do research ofKnorr-Cetina 1999) Itriedmuseum to be very slow in my pursuit. Instead of lookingin for something ina order to 17 CEU eTD Collection teenager, left his notes about the writer (Belov 1985;Perlina 2001). about him - even the man who helped the Dostoevskys with thedistribution of books, as a Dostoevskaya worked onhis first posthumous biography, many people wrote their memoirs memorial meetings where they shared with public their recollections on Dostoevsky, Anna organized Miller Orest and Strakhov Nikolay writer. the about talking on keep people other make to best their made that ones first the were friends and Hisrelatives proliferating. stopped Fyodor Dostoevsky died in 1881, however, since then the statements about him have never and five incarnations2.1. Dostoevsky his posthumous each other was the main concern of my analysis, to which Inow turn to. find it, they have then material consequences. Infact, to show how words and things support mind that to function like this all statements have to find some material support and if they do in I keep position this Adopting and natural. possible became Museum Dostoevsky the how statements that were produced by different actors at different time enabled me tounderstand understand the study of language use (Wetherell 2001), assuming that collecting and analyzing the example unpack this set she used the notion of discourse.since In my interpretative analysis Ifollowed her thisfall from heaven, but there is a set of concepts and practices that bring it to life (Smith 2006). To methodological not does heritage that meaning asheritage", thing such isno "there that claims she when Smith, Dostoevsky and Museum; in this sense my project has parallels with thework of Laurajane as 'things' such are there that sense assumptions common the kitat problematizing I aim 1, Chapter fits were mentionedbythe museum workers–themain story-tellers in myresearch. Asdiscussed in best my Thus, my strategy wastheoretical to move from statement tostatement, place toplace, object toobject, that purposes. By discourse I 18 CEU eTD Collection classic. I will delineate now these five Dostoevskys in more details. philosopher, a revolutionary, a reactionary writer, a great writer and, finally, anindisputable this question can beinferred from the Russian and thenSoviet press: Dostoevsky as a religious to answers different five least At is Dostoevsky?” "who question the to answers their suggesting remained a public figure after his death. People kept on discussing his works and biography, Through the circulation of the statements produced by different people Dostoevsky has wrote. narratives they tried to find a coherent system in what Dostoevsky did what he said and what he hoping that it would help to understand his ideas and his interest in the particular topics. In their 4 inner self-improvement and as a prophet who foresaw the destructive power of the revolutionary genius who showed the way to the world harmony through the evangelist love, deep faith and of Dostoevsky and thus used his status tosupport their own claims. They presented him as a ideas Christian the emphasized Solovyov Vladimir and Berdyaev Nikolai Rosanov, as Vasily such the future development of the country. Participating in these discussions religious philosophers end of the 19th century. It was unstable time for the RussianThe first reading of Dostoevsky society was proposed by the Russian writers and philosopherswith of the hot public debatesphilosopher on religious a as Dostoevsky 2.1.1. details biographical and aware ofthe widespread tradition to interpret the works of a writer on the basis of his personal circulation from those who knew him personally. All of them were educated people and were into got lifecircumstances his and personality Dostoevsky’s regarding statements the all Basically I discussed this tradition talking about the ideology of the man of genius in the previous chapter. 4 . So they shared their private knowledges about Dostoevsky with public 19 CEU eTD Collection however, became problematic for the Bolshevik government after 1917. Russian literature as a religious philosopher in the first place. This version of Dostoevsky, pushed tothe foreground in the mainstream media. Thus, Dostoevsky entered the pantheon of ideology ofthat time, the 'light' Dostoevsky prevailed and the religious aspects of his works were official the of part was acrucial Christianity As people. amoral and criminals about narrated promoted rather individualistic approach to the salvation; he talked about love and faith but proposed any clear program of social change; he contemplated the destiny of humanity but ambiguities picked up byhis early critics: Dostoevsky showed unfairsocial conditions but never The whole future machinery of Dostoevsky production in the 20th century was founded on these 1882). (Michaylovsky who enjoyed narrating sufferings instead of showing healthy ideals for social change talent" cruel "the him called and life individual and social of sides dark the describe to inclination image of Dostoevsky by the communist ideologists. 5 regarded, but work, a objects of everydayfactory life…Art of the proletariat is not a holy shrine where things are lazily which producesevery one hada right to bean artist: "The proletariat willcreate newhouses, newstreets, new new artistic things"high culture was an outdated bourgeois phenomenon and that in the new (Iskisstvocommunist society Kommuny that for example, was claimed, It programs. radicalartistic hadvery ofthem Some to proliferate. 1918). inspiring effect for theSoviet artistic field: different avant-garde groups and movements started The radical revolutionary a transformationsas Dostoevsky 2.1.2. brought about by the October Revolution in 1917 had a very movements This remark refers mainly to his novel "The Demons" which played later a crucial role in constructing the negative 5 (Ashimbaeva 2005). tothis, Contrary the critics ofDostoevsky emphasized his 20 CEU eTD Collection Dostoevsky’s biography and highlighted the moment when hewas arrested and exiled because of the victim of the autocratic regime. To support his interpretation Lunacharsky referred to Lunacharsky turned Dostoevsky from a religious philosopher into a passionate revolutionary and Lunacharsky made at thecelebrations of Dostoevsky’s 100 translate Dostoevsky’s writings into the Soviet discourse was the speech that Anatoly be re-interpreted; and this is what was done to Dostoevsky’s legacy. Themain text that helped to to be able just to write him out of the new Russian-Soviet literature. What cannot be ignored can However, theresonance madebyDostoevsky’s works in pre-revolutionary societywasdeep too by the Soviet ideologists on Dostoevsky to another. article critical one from traveling on Gorkykept of words the and scandal vs. Dostoevsky Gorky this to contributed willingly media Mass 1913). (Gorky worse only situation social the make argued that this novel was "a sadistic and unhealthy work" that promoted pessimism and could the project of the Moscow Hudoghestvenny Theatre to stage Dostoevsky’s The Demons. He 7 realism socialist 6 the Bolshevik discourse through thearticle of Maxim Gorky negative phenomena and amoralhim. As mentioned already, the pattern of criticizing Dostoevsky for being toocharacters focused on the tookspeak against to began ideas religious and his irrelevant became anindividual shape of psychology in already in the 1880s;Dostoevsky, a writer highly appreciatedin by the previous regime,1913 became problematic. His interest it entered support more traditional artistic views: the cult of an individual creator was preserved. However, after the first wave of the enthusiasm fell down, the Bolshevik government started to Lunacharsky was a Comissar of Enlightenment (Narkompros) at that time Later the Soviet Government did a lot to propagandize Gorky as a true pro-revolutionary writer and a founder of 21 th anniversary in 1921 6 . In this article Gorky spoke against spoke Gorky this article . In 7 . Inthis speech CEU eTD Collection change in the 1930s under the Stalinist regime. throughout the 1920s without serious impediments from theofficials. The situation began to Propaganda Project (Fedorenko 2003). The academic research onDostoevsky also kept going even decided toset up a monument toDostoevsky in theframework of the Monumental Illiteracy!" and "Cheap library of classics".literature. In 1918, when the Civil WarSome wasNew interpretation madein it possible to preservefull Dostoevsky in the pantheon ofRussian-Sovietswing,of hisit was novelswith his Christian ideals, after 1917 they were translatedwere into theSocialist revolution language. publisheddifference concerned thedirection ofthesechanges: if before 1917 wereassociated they mainly soon after debates:1917 the dark pessimistic Dostoevsky vs. the light and ready for the changes. The only in such seriesBasically theSoviet discourse reproduced the dichotomy that took shape in the pre-revolutionaryas "Away with socialism. Yes, Dostoevsky is a socialist. Dostoevsky is a revolutionary! (Lunacharsky 1921:4). and atonement. This made him join the Petrashevsky Circle. This attracted him to the utopian understand and feel the existential harmony. He was obsessed by the aspiration to harmonize life could "He that: toconclude rhetoric revolutionary and religious mixed virtuously Lunacharsky passive. politically him making and worldview Dostoevsky’s for twisting was toblame that autocracy. clear political program but most of its members sympathized socialist ideas and were the opponents of the Russian8 too indulgent for class enemy. In the first edition of the Big Soviet Encyclopedia (Lunacharsky severe critic of thecorrupted capitalist society, however, for the Stalinist timesthis reading was a and writer as arealist discourse Soviet the in wasstabilized 1930s Dostoevsky mid the By writer reactionary a as Dostoevsky 2.1.3. activities. revolutionary his As a young man Dostoevsky was a member of The Petrashevsky Circle, a secret discussion club. It did not have a 8 According to Lunacharsky, it was the political regime of autocracy 22 CEU eTD Collection as mentioning the works of Lenin in the introduction, were obeyed. subject academic for the research aslong unwritten the rules of theSoviet literary criticism, such ideologically correct incensorship; nobody waspublic. interested in unmasking anybody as long as it looked and sounded Dostoevsky becamegeneral distrust official in the discourse was replaced bythe more easy going and liberal if not so welcomed but1956 when "the personality cult"at and dictatorship of Stalinleast were denounced. The atmosphere of a legitimate The situation began tochange in theUSSR after the20th Congress of the Communist party in writer great a as Dostoevsky 2.1.4. enemies-everywhere was applied. regime and Dostoevsky was just another public figure to whom the structure of unmasking- as such -the ideological machinery of that time was programmed to look for the enemies of the him became unwanted (if notdangerous). Infact, nobody seemed to beinterested in Dostoevsky he was included in the list of "reactionary writers" andmovement. Publicationany of that articleresearch was a clear signal to all who wrote(if about Dostoevsky not that mere mentioning) on reactionary (since the1860s), started when he tosympathize religion andcriticize revolutionary writers. It was suggested revolutionary true of camp the into Dostoevsky include histo quick too were critics literary worksSoviet be divided into two periods:socialism and the Soviet people; in this contextprogressive it became clear, so thenarration went, that some (in the 1840s)Pravda 1948).and It was said thatimperialist agents from abroad used Dostoevsky’s ideas to discredit published areport of the discussion that took place in the Leningrad University (Leningradskaya on the end of the 1940s, when Leningradskaya Pravda - oneof the central Soviet newspapers - but even shameful for the true proletarians. The culmination of this negative re-interpretation fell 1931) Dostoevsky was characterized as a petty bourgeois, whose worldview was not only harmful 23 CEU eTD Collection established newly the of issue first the from quotation A 1994). Ponomareva 1994; (Zakharov proliferate to periodical started Dostoevsky" of experience religious the in Karamazov "Ivan and writings" Dostoevsky’s - Dostoevskyproblematic in his texts; such articles as "On theChristian meaning of the main idea in and Worldstatements about new Dostoevsky. For example, there was a burst of interest in the religious Culturethe democracy and freedom ofspeech. As usual talking- about new society generated revealsthe The theearly classic 1990-s dominant were often perceivedindisputable an as asmood the beginning of Dostoevsky of a new era2.1.5. and new society based on great writer as a true expert of human nature and virtuoso of realistic narration. that capitalism brought nothing but sufferings (Plotkin 1956). Once again Dostoevsky became a revolution, he nevertheless succeeded insevere criticism the monarchical of regime andshowed terms; as if, although he did not manage to understand that the only way out was a proletarian 1971). His negative assessment of the revolutionary movement was now described in paternalistic (Motyleva exploitation capitalist and inequalities social of critics the of camp in the him keep ideologists. Itwas important for them to distance Dostoevsky from the capitalist writers and statements of the importance ofDostoevsky toexistentialism were problematic for the Soviet but such authorsbit awkward for the communist censors. The rhetoricas wastaboo. High esteemnot of FranzDostoevsky as abroad, in thehostile countries of the capitalist camp, wasas also alittlein the Stalinist times,Kafkaso called anti-capitalist criticism, but theanalysis of his religious contemplations remained a and Albert and style hisrealistic celebrate to was necessary it example, For agenda. ofthe out remain should CamusA certain convention took its shape regarding what couldwere be said about Dostoevsky and what still not so welcomed and the 24 CEU eTD Collection appropriated by the different statement-makers in order to support their own political claims. be can that signifier a floating like press in circulating been has he then since 1881; but in died he literature of field the in actor social and a writer As century. previous the of discourse public Thus, at least five different posthumous incarnations of Dostoevsky can bedistinguished in the indisputable. remains open to the different interpretations, his status of a great writer appears now to be that his name has become a very strong reference point. While thecontent ofDostoevsky attempts oftranslating Dostoevsky’s textsintothe differentprojectsare, theyshowvery clearly of Russia and its great mission for the whole world. However, no matter how numerous these easy to involve him into the nationalist discourse as well, emphasizing his ideas on the special way it make 1870s the from works Dostoevsky’s some time, same the At 2007). (Lvova Kerouac" ofJack the Correspondence in as "Dostoevsky such associations, unexpected new make to inspired are authors the today Dreiser; Theodore and Mann as Thomas such writers, western of number limited a very with line in name Dostoevsky’s put to legitimate it was Previously the international literature pantheon rather then limit his importance by the national scope. the communist ideologists, since 1991 Russian statement-makers have tended to include him into While in theSoviet times, the recognition of Dostoevsky by "the west" was quite problematic for The title of the periodical is also very tellingdifficulties tostudy Dostoevsky in the Soviet times, on the other. regarding the enthusiasmnew forthe changes on the one hand, and the tendency to emphasizestatus thelimits and the of Dostoevsky’swithout any censorship" (Dostoevsky and World Culture 1993). These self-reflections show the legacy. under thecommunist regime only now have got a chance to express their views fully and openly Dostoevsky scholars at that time: "<…> those who had to study Dostoevsky for a long time 25 CEU eTD Collection process of Dostoevsky production. The following chapter will discuss inwhat way theDostoevsky Museum contributes to this 26 CEU eTD Collection level, whenwidow. In1901 her attempts to memorialize her husband were recognized on the institutional her effortspromotion of Dostoevsky’s legacy, acting rather as a goal-oriented politician than as a sentimental resultedAnna Dostoevskaya outlived her husband by 37 years and all this time she devoted to the further in the establishmenteven invited a photographer to make ashot of his study room. archivist. of She "thestarted writingspouse but as an outstanding writer, AnnaMemorial Dostoevskaya soon developed the skillsa of his very detailed diary,Dostoevsky methe was already a famous writer. Appreciating her husbandpreserved Museumnot only as a loving his drafts, example, his writing-materials,of his tobaccoand supplies or his hat. When Anna Snitkinaafter and FyodorF.M. his death sheWhen Dostoevsky died in 1881, his wife preserved many of his personal things such as, for for the only reason that they are associated with some significant events or dear people. expensive, like adiamond ring, or on the contrary, of no value atall, such as expired train ticket, 1998). In European societies it is a common practice to preserve some things that can bevery the questions about the concrete objects usually triggered a mass of biographical details (Hoskins and life stories. Being asked to tell something about their life people often had little tosay, while showed how material things helped people in their everyday life to construct their self-definitions meanings (Gosdenenvironment, they are also able to accumulate histories and thus participate in the production of and material the of pieces passive just Marshallnot are Objects 1986). Kopytoff 1986; (Appadurai 1999).As it was pointed out bysome anthropologists, things play an important role in social lifeBy the example of 3.1. Frompersonalbelongingstomuseum exhibits the Kodi society Janet Hoskins Chapter 3.Making Chapter Dostoevsky Visible 27 CEU eTD Collection F.M.Dostoevsky" became the concern of the state that had to find the ways to preserve them. (Fedorenko heritage cultural the of part legitimate became and significance" biographical of "things as labeled were cigarette-box and photos family 2003). letters, private ashis things andordinary routine such thismove By Petersburg. in St. Dom) Pushkinsky called (usually of Literature Institute Since departmentthat that part of the things that belonged to the Dostoevskys was delivered tothe allresponsible for dealing with the objects categorized in this way. It was by the efforts of "thethis The new "Department for preservation,objects inventory and registration ofmonuments" became associateddiscourse for dealing with what was expropriated. surprise, when a category of "property of artistic and historic value" took shape in theofficial with and it was notvery clear what todo with thethe part that left. The solution did not come as a nameRevolution theresult of nationalization was that partof the property disappeared into nowhere of theChrezuchet -was directed to seize it and inventory (Fedorenko 2003). As in case of the French writerprivate property, including what was kept in the storehouses. Special administrative body - chance to take it back. One of the first decrees of the young Soviet Republic nationalized all the Petersburg and deposited her family property in one of the storehouses. Later she did not have a institutional gesture. Shortly before the October Revolution in 1917, Anna Dostoevskaya left St. personal initiative of hisThus, some part of the private things of wife.Dostoevsky found their way tothe museum through the The other part found its way to the museum spaceestablished Dostoevsky Museum in Moscow (Bograd, Rybalko,through and Tustanovskaya 1981). the and it became available for the general public only in 1928 when it became a part of the newly manuscripts. In the best tradition ofa cabinet ofcuriosities the access to this room was limited managed to publish acatalogue of this collection; mainly it was comprised of Dostoevsky’s also she Later in Moscow. Museum RussianHistorical the of rooms the of inone Dostoevsky" 28 CEU eTD Collection with astatus of a great writer is deprived of the right to have any privacy. On the other, when it noticed here. On the one hand, very intimate traces of personal life are made public: a person prominent the visualcontemporaries, documents section they included pictures of his relatives and friends, portraits of the invitation cards – texts that usually do not have anything andto do with what is called literature.lettersthe Into topictures his fellow writers,category of "manuscripts" we find notonly the writer’s drafts, sheets fromof his notebooksbut and alsohis the letterfavoritehis that he everydaywrote to writers.his in used he motherwhat saw and he what wrote, he what parts: three in Dostoevsky divided analytically life.as a child, TwobillsThis exhibition the that say is to that 1921); Dom and (Pushkinksy tendencies things private and documents visual work of classification As the cancatalogue narrates, the exhibition was comprised ofseveral distinct parts: manuscripts, be is interestingas a document that can shed some light on the extraordinary person. in itself.manifestations, the strange collection ofthings becomes meaningful, as every article is referredFor to example,With a presupposition that a writer is a person offlesh and blood, coherent in all his under themakes sense only with painting andthe a medicine box were placed together and presentedreference as worthy of public attention to suchsocial an abstract figure totality as adistinct in writer, the what of theory practical as a seen be society,– can adisplay for organized were as the personalityis. The verywas hold byPushkinskyof Domin 1921. Thisfact exhibitiona –the selectionwriter. of things and the way they that such diverseThe same logicthings can as be a illustratedchild’s letter, by the first works. landscape literary his study who memorial exhibitionthat belonged to the writer are considered to bepart of his legacy and of some interest tothosedevoted to things trivial very the even all, Dostoevskywhich to according logic cultural the noticeable makes case This that 29 CEU eTD Collection museum houses in order to help them in organizing their exhibitions. an ideal memorial exhibition can be reconstructed from the manuals, written for the staff of the average and low cultural capital (Chuikina 2005). What the museum professionals thought to be for the Soviet ideologists, who aimed at 'civilizing' 'the wide working masses', i.e. people with the 'high' values tothe audience in a quite simple and accessible way; this was especially important ideas and 'high' present to way a convenient as seen was It USSR. inthe popular very become The idea to reconstruct a house oran apartment of a prominent political or cultural figure has 3.2. Visualizationofawriter will show how the museum workers make this notion hold by means of the material objects. notion of a writer as an individual genius itself remained unchanged. In the following section I Dostoevsky and status the ofhis legacy have changed several times during the 20thcentury, comprised basically ofthe same objects. This persistence shows that though the content of were 1991 and 1921 in place took that writer the to devoted exhibitions memorial the Thus, drafts, portraits and personal belongings (Biron 1997). same the significantly: changed not display has on put theobjects of selection the However, Petersburg as a background and put theenlarged photocopies of the manuscripts on the walls. was put into Museumthe organized a temporary exhibition devoted to Dostoevsky in Belgium. Much more effort design Dostoevsky the Dom, Pushkinsky in exhibition memorial first the of after years 1998, 77 In the exhibition space. the culturally significantFor objects. example,goes about genius nothing can be irrelevant and the very trivialthey things are elevated to the status of used the images of St. 30 CEU eTD Collection justified by the drive "to crack the secret of Dostoevsky’s individual genius" (Kovina 2001). So it So 2001). (Kovina genius" individual Dostoevsky’s of secret the crack "to drive the by justified glass of tea. In this discourse the curious gaze at the everyday environment of the writer is museum tries to reconstruct showing the writer’s monumental desk, burning candles and the as an opportunity toapproach closer the sacred and usually hidden process of creating that visitors to perceive their experience not only as time-traveling orcommunication with spirits; but in sense of Bourdieu`s notion ofideology of the man ofgenius. The museum workers teaches its This message, repeated also bythe tour guide and intheexhibition posters, is purely ideological masterpiece (this pattern is reproduced by most of the memorial boards devoted to the writers). significant not only because Dostoevsky lived here but also because here he wrote his Mikhailovich Dostoevsky; here he wrote his novel The Brothers Karamazov. So, the apartment is says: in this house in 1846 and since 1878 till his death on February, 9 1881 lived Fyodor It sense. this in telling very is building the of façade the at is installed that board memorial The strong tea of course) plays a great role; however, there is another aspect that is equally important. The mystical experience of visiting Dostoevsky’s apartment, as if he still lives here (and drinks his for them. What makes this deep emotional involvement possible? many people are really touched by what they see in the museum and this experience is significant opportunity to travel to expectthe from it: "I was happy to find myselfDostoevsky’s in the universe of a great writer"; "thank you for the time"– Museumthey write show there. that Thesethey of thisnotes virtualare presence. The comments of the visitors well in theguestbookshow of the Dostoevsky awarethat very of thishe still lives herebutjust left the place forexhibition amoment. The glass ofteathen becomes an evidence effect, furnitureand and household objects are called upon thisto create "a feeling of the writer’s presence," as if is exactly whatcreating an authentic atmosphere of the writer’s environmentthey (Marchenko 1984). The pieces of From these manuals it becomes clear, that the main task of the memorial museum is seen in 31 CEU eTD Collection masterpieces" (Ashimbaeva 2009). (Ashimbaeva masterpieces" museum workers positionview. The issue of object’s quality, however, is irrelevantthemselves for the memorial exhibitions. As the in thethe displayed thingsfield: have an amateurish touch and are not so valuable from the artistic point of "we are Often 2009). not (Tikhomirov like lived have could Dostoevsky as an income and status social same the art museum to displaywith writer average the how idea an give avisitor to is objects these of The task tohim. belong only Typological objects come from the same time period when the author lived though they did not Museum professionals distinguish between what they call memorial and typological objects. mystical mood of the exhibition comes from. never be explained: theeveryday life experience. But at the samevisitor time, it is always emphasized that theway hedoes it can can approachthese presentations creativity becomes something thisvery simple: the writer just reworks his secret but In 1981). (Bograd novels his for material the as take could never that Dostoevsky incidents and crimes reach it – this is ofwhere his characters.the Anotherand Alexander Herzen as possible historical figures that were used by Dostoevskyexample to create one is the displayprototypes of his characters. For example, they put on display the portraits of Pyotr Chaadaev of the newspaperslife with story reports onand differentdiscourse: tosimplify and to mystify. On the one hand, the exhibitionspeculates narrates the Dostoevsky’s = life experiencewhat experience + imagination.masterpiece a formula: in the expressed be can message ideological Its museum. memorial the by This formula triggered definesgeniuses is developed further in the popular theory of what it is tocreate a masterpiecetwo promoted opposite his tendencies ideasThe ideain theand museumthat what there real is somepeople secretmake possible such statements that we find in thewere museum guestbook. behind the the is this proximity to the creatingcreating process that together with the mystical presence ofthe creator process, that is available only to the 32 CEU eTD Collection Dostoevsky’s personality too costly and risky from the outset. assigning to them thecultural value were. All these inscriptions would make therefutation of their previous owners were, whether there are any copies of them and what thereasons of on all the displayed objects including the information on where these objects came from, who records elaborate the of is comprised it public; the to inaccessible room in aspecial is kept part since what thevisitors actually see atthe exhibition is only one part of the collection. Another the things on display do not have any relation to Dostoevsky. And this would be not an easy task, things. If anyone wants to claim the personal his of avisualdisplay of bymeans contrary existence Dostoevsky’s of visitors their convince he first would have to convince Museum theDostoevsky of workers the inscriptions, the of means by claims the their of validity audience that what a tour guideworkers` narrative: things are there and they maketalks their claims credible –a visitor can actually see about.The emphasized authenticity of theAs objects functions as adevice of legitimizationin of the museum case of scientists who in 1881, was preserved. convince their AnnaDostoevskaya of request atthe made photo, as its original, tothe closely very reconstruct colleagues papers.of The tour guide proudly talks about Dostoevsky’sthe study room that they were able to reconstructed. Specially fortheMuseum Leningrad Paper Factorymadea full replica wallof the years ago. The windows, the covering of the floor and the tiled stoves of the apartment were also archives, as they wanted it to be as close as possible to the one where Dostoevsky lived many reconstructed the apartment according to the plan of the building, which was found in thecity worked on Crime and Punishment" (Ponomareva 2002). Inthe Dostoevsky Museum they wardrobe Fyodor Dostoevsky would open" and "this is the very sofa on which heslept when he himself. The texts of Far moresignificancethe is assigned to the memorial objects, the guidebooksones that belonged to the writer are full of almost religious statements such as "this very 33 CEU eTD Collection to get an idea how Raskolnikov could look like. By this the visitors are encouraged to implement to encouraged are visitors the this By like. look could Raskolnikov how idea an get to clear (Marchenko 1984). For example, the visitor can beshown aportrait ofa student of the 19th comments to his writings"1997). Portraits of people,and landscape paintings and trivialare things function as "the material there to help the popularizereaders the author’s writings, "to motivate the visitors for the serious reading" (Ashimbaeva to grasp the ideasFinally, thetaskofa memorial exhibition, asreflected by the museum workers themselves,that is to are not so historical documents. now get even more complicated, if not absurd considering all these portraits, pictures and through this contextualization a writer becomes a historical figure, any doubts about his existence Dostoevsky visited and lithographs depicting the events of the French Revolution in 1848. Itis Chernyshevskyhistorical events or personalities of that period. For example, a visitor is shown the portraits of who knew him personally; to the places that still exist and can be visited;and and to the well-known otherThe work of the visual contextualization performs the task of connecting a writer to the people writers ofwhen he lived in this apartment. Dostoevsky’smakes possible to narrate his life story: from his childhood to his death, not only the last years and figure public as Dostoevsky contextualizes hall in aseparate exhibition "literary-historical" circle,apartment shows Dostoevsky’s everyday life and creates the atmosphere of privacy; while the picturesMuseum theydecided toseparate these things: the memorial exhibition in the reconstructed Dostoevsky the In illustrate. to there are materials of these evidence, to provide upon called Germanwith the visual material of different kind: photos, pictures,cities books. While the memorial things are The manuals for curators encourage them to supplement the authentic and typological objectsthat 34 CEU eTD Collection makes the memorial objects talk. guide atour how will discuss chapter next The silent. remain but impressive, look materials classifications. However, even therichest collection of things cannot say much on its own. Visual exhibition halls and glass boxes through a series of personal decisions and institutional without the main supporters of these claims –the material objects that found their way to the visitors by referring to the secret ofcreating that he knew as a genius. This would beimpossible museum is to present a writer as a personality and make this personality interesting for the Thus, the main imperative that can be inferred from the visual representation in amemorial hardly come as a surprise – mixing fiction and reality is a part of the game. experience, offeredRaskolnikov by the memorial and Dostoevsky historicalhouses; lived so thatin St. atrue of status lose his to tends hischaracters of company the inthe presented Petersburg. contrary, the figureglass of teaThis and forambiguity, thebeing a little real, as bitmore they areinscribedinto self-evident the materiality. Dostoevsky, on his dead however,lifepersonenjoy can characters fictitious places real the can to isstory references and artifacts pictures, all these With a part of thebeginspresented to sound to the audience a So it islittle notonly Dostoevskyas who is materialized atwell. theexhibition; the characters of his novels are This createsbit a certainunreal ambiguity considering in the Raskolnikovfiction/reality was a student and looked like this, it is not that difficult to understand the novel." divide. thattheir everyday knowledges to the texts; to popularize Crime and Punishment is tosay: "look, both 35 CEU eTD Collection monument, some pilgrims just walked up to the house, where he lived. The memorial board on board memorial The lived. he where house, the to up walked just pilgrims some monument, presence of the writernovels. Coming to Leningrad,and many Dostoevsky worshippers wished they had some "visiblehis characters".was strongly connected to the name of Dostoevsky,As as thecity was often the mainat scene ofhis that time theretold me, the idea was already inwas theair bythat time. For many people the image of St. Petersburg neither such placesupported by the citizens. As my interviewee, who participated norin theopening of the museum, a The decision toestablish a memorial museum devoted to Dostoevsky came from above, and was large-scale celebration campaign. 2001). The establishment of the Dostoevsky Museum in Leningrad was another grand part of this notes were processed anew and provided with thevery detailed academic comments (Arkhipova and drafts manuscripts, available all works: collected Dostoevsky’s of edition academic fullest this event densely. The special research group was organized in Pushkinsky Domtoprepare the country: mass media, libraries, theatres, schools and universities wererecommended to reflect on was established for these purposes. The whole Dostoevsky campaign was launched around the - –All-Union-Jubilee-Committee body administrative a special even that fact the by illustrated be and a great celebration was considered necessary. The importance assigned to this celebration can had toshow to the whole world that the Soviet people knew how to appreciate great literature, proclaimed 1971 the year of Dostoevsky.date was So approachingon the highest level Dostoevsky’sand birth in 1971. In itthe end of the that1960swas the government officials decided realized that the big it would that the be USSR celebratedThe museum in St. Petersburg owes its existence tothecelebration of the 150th anniversary of internationally; UNESCO,4.0. founding fathers Followingthe for example, Chapter 4. Chapter Following themuseumworkers 36 CEU eTD Collection was the one where Dostoevsky livedphilosophical and religion-oriented novels.during While theflat chosen for the museum in Leningrad the last years of hiswere more readily accepted lifeby the communist ideologists in comparisonand with his later, more in this sense it can bechildhood and the exhibition there is more focused on his early years and early writings, which discourse. The Moscow Museum is situated in the building where Dostoevsky spent his political success for those who struggled for the wider recognition of a writer by the official In more general terms the establishment of another Dostoevsky Museum was a considerable Petersburg) game. The new museum thus was an important move of Leningrad in this Moscow vs. Leningrad (St. 1997:3). 16"(Volgin of age the before shape take priorities and values main "personality, know Moscow emphasizes that Dostoevsky was born and spent his childhood there, and as we all Dostoevsky' becameawell known cliché and partofthecity self-representation. Striking back of Petersburg 'St. aswell; hisnovels of many of characters the and livedhimself Dostoevsky where is here asit leader, absolute bean to itself considers Petersburg St. Dostoevsky case of In built St. Petersburg, and St. Petersburg – in 1918 when it was given back to Moscow 9 cities Russian big two between rivalry a traditional in used is Dostoevsky Here writer? Petersburg St. Dostoevsky solidarity there were some elements of competition too: is Dostoevsky a Moscow or the new museum in Leningrad. It was a substantial help (Tikhomirov 2009). However, along with gesture many memorial objects associated with thelast years of Dostoevsky’s life were granted to As I already mentioned, one Dostoevsky Museum(Ashimbaeva 2009). So the news of the Dostoevsky Museum was warmlyalready welcomed. existedits façade did not inmeet their expectations of Moscow.how the writer should becommemorated By its generous Both cities had a traumatic experience of losing the status of capital: Moscow – in 1712 when it was given to newly 9 that has for a long time become a part of urban folklore, numerous jokes and speculations. 37 CEU eTD Collection into semi-officialalready "Club-81": moved to "thereits permanentnew poems of Oleg Okhapkin and Pyotr Chaigin" (Ashimbaevawere 2001b). Later, when museum not location, so many thisplaces tradition in the cityof gatherings back then and when public one readings grew poets, writers – "I used to comedifferent people startedthere to stop by at that first (literally underground) museum site: students,to hear the last news, as in Saigon 11 10 shestidesyatniky were all "we culture: alternative the of atouch had still meetings these regime political meetings, lively discussions on literature and philosophy. Not exactly in opposition to the existent Although it was launched by the official discourse, the preparation work grew into theoften revolutionary mood among the young people. enthusiasm: it perfectly fitted into the atmosphere of those days - the 1960s are famous forthe museum devoted tosuch acontroversial figure asDostoevsky was accepted by them with great young graduates of the philological faculty of the Leningrad University. The task of creating enterprise in the eyes of the participants. The first museum group was comprised mainly of the whole to the charm added itonly however, time, that At 2009). (Ashimbaeva ethics preservation laughed recollecting those days, as that first museum location broke all possible norms of the It is to this place theyplace to meet but in some basementstarted on Marata Street granted to them by the city administration. to bring theKuznechny lane was stillarticles under reconstruction and the newborn museum group had no other of their growingThough by the end of the 1960s theMuseum hadalready existed on the paper, the apartment on collection. My interviewee convenient for the Communist Party. seen as a sign ofa gradual ideological indulgence and recognition of 'late' Dostoevsky, not so Saigon – a legendary café in Leningrad that became a meeting point for the hip peopleThe self-definitionin the 1970-80s of the Soviet alternative youth, literally – generation of the 1960s 10 , whatwould youexpect",myinterviewee said (Ashimbaeva 2009). Very 38 11 , and to listen to the CEU eTD Collection and adoorbell that atour guide encourages them to ring. Sofrom the outset of the exhibition the fullname the writer's with engraved ametalplate can see visitors the entrance At the personality. thus is functionally divided and its organization presents different sides of Dostoevsky’s room, and – as the culminationa washing room, the children’s room, the cabinet of Anna Dostoevskaya,of a dininga room, a livingtour – the study hall, flat:anentrance of the rooms seven through to walksuccessively are supposed visitors The room of Dostoevsky himself. The space talks the visitors into seeing Dostoevsky. teacher. Iwill follow now the tour guide to show how she in the alliance with the material objects museum, however, are school children. They came in large groups of 15-20 accompanied by their accompanied by a friend of them who shows them around the place. The main visitors of the Usually they come in small companies of 2-4 people and walk around ontheir own or abroad. Russiaand from both tourists, among popular is quite Museum Dostoevsky the Today 4.1. Followingthetour guides what they win (de Certeau 1984). the Place always allows the non-mainstream groups to represent themselves openly and keep interested in Dostoevsky to establish aPlace of their own. It was a remarkable achievement, since in that by the international community, but nevertheless it was agolden opportunity for all those pantheon of the Russian-Soviet literature. To certain extent the Soviet government was pressed contribution to the rehabilitation ofDostoevsky’s legacy and signals his gradual comeback to the Thus, the initiative toestablish a new Museum in Leningrad in 1971 can beseen as an important 2009). (Ashimbaeva yourself" like people could freely exchange their thoughts. It was great to come to the museum club and find there 39 CEU eTD Collection closer to the visitor only to emphasize his distance in the next moment. ordinary man and an by the fact that geniusesextraordinary also drink tea. Again we can see the ambiguity of Dostoevsky’s image: an personknowledgeable person makes them somehow peculiar, as if the visitor is supposed atto be surprised the same timecup. The very fact that such trivial and personal details- are told in a public placethe by a supposedly narrator writermakes almost tangible. The visitors are also told that he used toget angry when someone took hisDostoevsky only his relatives would be able to hear.tour we can not Theseonly see Dostoevsky’s things, but also hear hisintimacies voice saying things that normally of his family life makehe usually made it himself themurmuring: "ohmy god, how miserablefigure I am!" At this point of the of a so him satisfy would that tea make to able was relatives ofhis Noone strong. very it had usually the man’s eating and drinking habits. Dostoevsky, so the narration goes, was fond of tea, and he Dostoevsky’s cup and his silver spoon. These objects give her a chance to tell the visitors about After the entrance hall we find ourselves in adining room. Here the guide points out the ordinary visitors, who came here to gaze, and the great author, who lived at this place. The glass box then elevates the trivial object to the status of a relic and creates a distance between special enough for his quite trivial thing from his wardrobe being worthy of such Dostoevsky; additional about wasspecial thatsomething reminded gently weare bythis and a glassbox care. of us, a tour guide points out to the hat that, she says, belonged to the writer. The hat is placed in this place. However, when we are almost convinced that Dostoevsky was anordinary man like all machine. Except for that everything looks usual – one can easily imagine ordinary people living at the design of the flat obviously belong to the lifestyle ofthe past and function thus as a time- In the entrance hall the visitors see the clothes tree and walking sticks. These objects as well as come to see their neighbor. can they as to see can come they that person a real as see Dostoevsky to proposed are visitors 40 CEU eTD Collection hardly surprised by this – we already know that Dostoevsky was a devoted tea-drinker. devoted wasa Dostoevsky know that –wealready bythis surprised hardly the massive table withman candles,while here, inbooks, front of hisand to understand working why. Up tothispapers moment, we saw Dostoevsky as a nice person and a loving family place, on it.we meet And him alsoas a cabinet is the writer.most important point ofthe a tour. She does not sayglass it explicitlybut it is notdifficult The visitorsof tea. areNow shown weworked and the ordinary worldare where the visitors stand. The tour guide emphasizes that the Dostoevsky where site sacred the between time this - adistance creates framing additional rope and one can only observe it from the doorway. As in case of the hat in the glass box, this The cabinet of Dostoevsky is the only room in a museum that is separated from the public bya artist. and hewas always heavily in debts, which also adds to the traditional image ofa poor but gifted understanding wife. The emphasis is also made on thefact that Dostoevsky’s income was low creative process. Here the image of Dostoevsky as a genius is constructed through the eyes of his everyday troubles to guard her husband from the trivialities that would only distract him from his a smart businesswoman who took upon herself the financial concerns of the family and all The next stop of the tour is the cabinet of Dostoevsky’s wife. Anna Dostoevskaya is presented as main thing that made him happy. was the life family that friend his to confessed Dostoevsky where letter his citing guide the by isintensified Thisimpression man. family an and exemplary father asaloving Dostoevsky shows can see a note written in childishwall, funny illustrated books, a wooden horse and a cloth doll. On thetable under the glass one handwriting, sayingWalking further"father, the visitors bring enter me thesome children’s gift." room. This There roomare photos of the little kids on the 41 CEU eTD Collection hero. By this point the narrative of a tour guide has made its circle: starting with making transformation of a family man into agenius writer and now the nice man turns into the national farewells.statuses: from famous intellectuals to the ordinary workingThis people who came tosay their momentof a funeral the street and the church were overcrowded with people of very different social of the tourwhat anirreparable loss Dostoevsky’s death was for everyone. According to the guide on the day can be many famous and respectedseen people who came to this flat onthe next day, how sad they were and as a catharsis:time and died of sudden hemorrhage. The visitor’s empathy is encouraged by the stories of those The tour guide ends with the storywe of Dostoevsky’s death. He had problems with lungs for a long have already seenpositive image of Dostoevsky’s lifethe and incomprehensibility ofhis talent. interpretations, a tour guide is there to illuminate only those of them that contribute to the "comprehend thesecret ofhis talent". Asthematerial objects readily admit different and creativity" his from mystery of veil the lift "to but a lot, worked who man, ordinary an something mysterious. The visitors are shown into the backstage not to see that Dostoevsky was the table and writes something. However, in the story ofa tour guide, writing becomes and books could beshown to support the claim that nothing is special about writing: onesits at Here it is especially clear that thethings themselves do not say anything. The same table, papers backstage of his creative work.. industrious person, they also tell the visitors what is it tobea writer, introducing them tothe and went to bed early in the morning. These details donotonly present Dostoevsky as an everybody was asleep and nothing could break the silence; he worked for about 6 hours in a row working routines of Dostoevsky. We learn that he preferred to work late at night when order not todisturb him. Before the visitors actually leave thetour guide tells them about the Everything is staged as if Dostoevsky can enter the room at any moment soit is better to leave in 42 CEU eTD Collection escapes the notice of the museum visitors. However, a group of7 researchers come to the Contrary to the public4.2. museum Followingthe researchers figures of the museum guides, Dostoevsky, thewho died many years ago. work of the1986), museum and researchers bynumbers it becomes possible to meanstalk about national economy, which is invisible otherwise (Latour of materialDostoevsky smoking, writing and enjoying his strong tea. By means of different charts and objectsdifferent things, a tour guide teaches the visitors to see not the tobacco box, a desk or a glass, butit becomeswith our own eyes, but at the same we see it only when we are told what to see. Showing possibleliked his tea strong. Dealing withto inscriptions their spokesperson tells us only what we cansee refer to therethe is hispersonality favorite silverThere are not so many occasions to say what kind of persontea Dostoevsky was, however, once spoon of on the tableThis case shows a bigit potential of the material thingsbecomes to support stories and make them credible. so natural to say that Dostoevsky immediate experience. writer’s personality gets visualized; in this form it becomes available for thevisitors as their own coherent unity asa Dostoevsky ofto present occasion an give and stories trigger objects his biographical public life and texts. Dostoevsky’s Byletters, the memoirs of his relativesmeans and the words of a tour guide. Being shown to of the tangiblecoherent display an abstractThe exhibitionlife of a memorial house thus provides its visitors with thelesson in making a notionstory of a and personalityunattainable height. ofDostoevsky human and close to the visitors it ends up with bringing hima back onto the genius, mixing the material things, citations from 43 CEU eTD Collection Dostoevsky that used to be neglected during the Soviet era out of the ideological reasons. museum research on the icon is another example of the present interest to those aspects of as this example shows some ideological maneuvers the new museum made possible. The course too strong to say that museum workers promoted "the anti-Soviet propaganda", however, could notbe shown could bementioned during the tour (Ashimbaeva 2009). Itwould beof said: what asmyinterviewee however, universe"; of Dostoevsky’s part "religious showing not the ideological curators" (Ashimbaeva 2001a). So officially museum workers obeyed the rules of qualified as "reactionary ideological and religious propaganda" and initiate "unwanted attention of mean to him. The museumpraying rituals were, how and why he got his hand on this icon and what its iconographycould could not display2001) the icon during"connects us with the innermost aspect ofthe writerthe –with his religious devotions" Soviet times asroom and considered to be one of the mostit important objects in the museum collectioncould asit be collection, such as the orthodox icon that belonged to Dostoevsky. It is displayed in the study the name of Dostoevsky in it; or to find some unknown details about thearticles in the rare artifact connected to Dostoevsky, such as thelist of the convicts of the Omsk prison with Their research is driven by the desire typical for the collectors: to enlarge the collection by anew also contribute to their production pursuing their own research. Finally, museum researchersdo not only collect or spread the statements about Dostoevsky, they enthusiasts. amateur the and researchers professional the of point meeting a Culture", World about Dostoevsky going. The central event of this kind is an annual conference "Dostoevsky and booklets devoted to Dostoevsky updated. Another aspect is to keep the circulation of statements discourse. Itis important for them to keep the museum collection of the monographs and publications and collect all significant statements about Dostoevsky appearing in academic museum every day as to any other regular job. One aspect of their work is to follow current . Aseries of investigations were triggered by this object regarding what Dostoevsky’s 44 (Kovina CEU eTD Collection conservative and boring place the managers often initiate experimental and innovative projects. afraid of beingsince the name of a writer is a well-known brand and it attracts visitors; onthe other, they are monotonousOn the one hand, the managers try to keep their focus on Dostoevsky as the main selling point and outdated. Toart and performances of the differentavoid theatre troupes. any signalassociations constantly their existence to public. That is why they readily house exhibitions of modern work hard towith create new occasionsa museumsees once andissatisfied restofhislife"for the (Ashimbaeva 2009). managers That iswhythe for the museum asto be talkeda aware thatabout it is next to impossible toachieve having only the permanentin exhibition, thatlocal "a visitor press and try to managers can be summarizedenterprise and self-promotion has stoppedin being seen as problematic. The strategya of the presentformula: "we want business every of part asanecessary marketing accept to tend museums Nowadays 1997). our visitor to come back".notion of a writer as a high-mindedThey sufferer and the memorial house as his temple (Popovaare well perceived the necessity "to market literary topics" as a traumatic experience, referring to the In the early 1990s museum professionals reflected much on the problem of "selling out" and 4.3. museum Followingthe managers vulgar speculations of popular press, on the other. defined by its opposition to the dry texts-oriented academic research, on the one hand, and to the character guarantees the museum workers their distinct niche inthe field ofDostoevsky studies personality. Its focus on the material artifacts, minor biographical details and sensation-oriented "key tothesecret of Dostoevsky", another missing element from the coherent picture of his Thus, any Dostoevsky’s object in thediscourse of museum research is seen as another possible 45 CEU eTD Collection further production of statements about Dostoevsky and result in his gradual re-interpretation. of the museum andnew statements in form of the film ortheatre performance, provoke the say about theskinheads" (Ashimbaeva 2009). Thus, such 'meetings' of the material environment 12 the demons and the radical movements present today in society why not discuss it in themuseum: "Dostoevsky himself was interested in that it was part of their concept "to follow current life"; if the nationalistic movement was place for this", - they said. The museum director, however,not didlike not see a problemthe here.idea She saidto show suchmovement in Russia and provoked controversial kind responses from the audience. Some viewers did of films in the Dostoevskyopportunity Museum: "this permanent exhibitionis was transformed to intonot the movie-theatre. After the show the viewersthe discusshad an right Inthe 2009 filmthere waswith a first its meeting director. of theDostoevsky. museum The film film club: when the professional actors wasfrom a museumfor troupe together with 16 children staged a play on severaldevoted hoursexperiment was launched by the managerstothe in 2003 together with the Kolpin Juvenile Prison,thehall ofnationalistic the museum halla separate in place take they life, the museum of part important nowthe are performances with a smallwith this performance their long-lasting cooperation with the theatre has started. The regular wooden Nevertheless, 2006). (Biron museum" the around tour a theatralized just wehad performance stage and Theyseats were fornot as a settingsatisfied for atheatrethe performance; so that the play was acted out exactly in the museum halls. audience. withFor example, in 1998 in order to break with the static-ness of thethe exhibition they decided to use it Evenresults a more– "the radicalexhibition remained static, instead of a true The interviewee refers here to the Dostoevsky’s novel 12 ; if he was alive hewould definitely have something to The Demons The 46 . CEU eTD Collection objects to the visitors to provide evidence for their stories. use them in their search fororganize different events that allow thenew interpretation ofthese objects; the museumnew researchers details of Dostoevsky’sdisplay and this makes their contribution to the Dostoevsky production specific. The managers life and the tourhave guides different show the actors allthese However, writer. the about statements makes who everyone with and Museum, tools. For thewho write on Dostoevsky, withmuseum the school teachers who bring children to the Dostoevsky workersresult oftheir work will be.Museum workers participate in this process along with the academics these tools process areof Dostoevsky production with many actors involved who never knowthe what the final materiala continuous is rather it museum; and inside outside Dostoevsky between border clear is no objects thateveryday basis show that there isthey no pregiven Dostoevsky that museum could 'represent', as there These examples of micro choices and decisions that themuseum managers have todo on the 47 CEU eTD Collection Dostoevsky remains an important figure in our culture because there are many people who work situation interesting for sociological analysis. What unsurprised visitors tend to ignore is that this makes iswhat this - and see they what by surprised rarely are they iswhy that existed; everyone.” Museum goers are ready to learn more about Dostoevsky, but not to doubt that he a genius?" The answer to this would be: "of course not, they do not have to,since it is obvious to really have toconvince their visitors that Dostoevsky was a historical personality and that he was Do they do? workers museum the reallywhat "is this point: this ask at to reasonable seems It what we all do in our everyday life. was a genius. Inthis sense the museum workers do nothing special: convincing each other is Dostoevsky (2) individual was an Dostoevsky (1) that the claims in visitors their and other each work there I came to theconclusion that the main task of their work is to convince themselves, who managers and guides, researchers tour actors asthe different such Following Petersburg. reasoning was applied in thepresent project to the case of the Dostoevsky Museum in St. special not in a museum as questiona place but of inwhat the ispractices specialApproaching a museum as a pregivenabout place,of we already program our analysisthose to answer the it. whoHowever, work there. it seems This to linebe equally of importantthe world. to ask what is work. The present project aimed at de-mystifying the divide between a museum and the rest of who have the rich arsenal of de-mystification devices at their disposal, will thus never be out of sociologists, the and divides, mystical such with flooded is language everyday Our 1986). (Latour arbitrary as the divide between Tijuana and SanDiego, enforced by police and bureaucrats is as it that claimed Latour culture, scientific and prescientific between divide the Discussing Conclusion 48 CEU eTD Collection are too interesting to be neglected. behind the phenomena, we allow ourselves to be surprised by the observable appearances that De-mystifications, however, have their own charm. Once we accept that there is no hidden reality all. after entertaining canbe mystifications tourists: localsand the among popular it is so is why the opposite is to mystify the situation, and the Museum is quite successful in doing it; maybe this happen between a visitor and a museumworker, not between a visitor and Dostoevsky. To claim Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky is an abstract notion since the interactions in the Dostoevsky Museum The alliance of things and words makes possible visualization ofsuch an abstract notion as disposal: these tools are the material objects that they put on display. practices of the museum workers is not the practices as such but the tools that they have at their verbalize things and things are always there to support their words. What is thus special about the more durable. Since then the tour guides and researchers come to the Museum every day to of things. This made the claims about his nice personality and outstanding talent more valid and collection the with writer the about statements of aseries link to it possible made Museum The works in spite of all ideological constraints. Leningrad in 1971 was a big political achievement of those who researched on Dostoevsky’s back to the acknowledged classic. In this sense the opening of the Dostoevsky Museum in prophet to arevolutionary, then to reactionary and almost anenemy of the Soviet State and then political claims. The posthumous career of Dostoevsky thus was quite dynamic: from a religious times throughout the 20th century his writings were reinterpreted in order tosupport different Several same. always the wasnot Dostoevsky of content the that showed research present The notice is what makes the knowledges about Dostoevsky so obvious and unproblematic. hard to preserve his cultural presence. This permanent work of convincing that often escapes our 49 CEU eTD Collection I thank the people who work in the Dostoevsky Museum for their kindness. I thank Alexandra Kowalski for her encouragement. I thank Daniel Monterescu for his advice. I thank Tom Rooney for his patience. Acknowledgements 50 CEU eTD Collection Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. “Flaubert`s point of view.” in The field of cultural production. Essays on Essays production. cultural of field The in view.” of point 1993. “Flaubert`s Pierre. Bourdieu, Bograd, G., B. Rybalko, and E. Tustanovskaya. 1981. Biron, Vera. 2006. “ Biron, Vera. 1997. “ Bennett, Tony. 1995. The birth of museum. London: Routledge. Belov, S. 1985. “ Barthes, Roland. 1977. “The death of the author.” in Image, Music, Text, edited by Stephen Ashimbaeva, N. 1997. “ Ashimbaeva, N. 2001b. “ Ashimbaeva, N.2001a. “ Ashimbaeva, N. 2005. “ Boldyreva).” -Anna (interviewer interview 2009. “April N. Ashimbaeva, Arkhipova, A. 2001. “ Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value.” in TheSocial Life Abrams, Philip. 1977. “Notes on the difficulty of studying the state.” Journal of historical art and literature, edited by Randal Johnson. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lenizdat. ǡǙǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻ v sovremennom mire. SPb: Evropeiskyi Dom. unknown].” Dostoevsky i Mirovaya Kultura. i Mirovaya Dostoevsky unknown].” by A. Margolis. SPb: Kontrfors. special[The features oftheliterary museum visitors].” in Musei v periodperemen,edited Heath. New York: Hill. Museum in St.Petersburg is 30 years old].” Dostoevsky i Mirovaya Kultura. Statiy o Dostoevskom 1971-2001, edited by Boris Tikhomirov. SPb: Serebrjanyi Vek. Serebrjanyi Vek. the 19th -thebeginning of the 20 centuries].” in Dostoevsky. Kontekst tvorchestva. SPb: ǼDzǽǯǻǶȄDzǿǯDzǽǿǵ Dostoevsky i Mirovaya Kultura. i Mirovaya Dostoevsky of Things. Cambridge University Press. 1:58-89. sociology ǏǻǷǽȀǰǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻ ǙȀǴDzǶ ǑǻǾǿǻDzǾǷǵǶ ǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǵǶǯǽȀǾǾǷǻǶȁǵǸǻǾǻȁǾǷǻǷǽǵǿǵȄDzǾǷǻǶǹȈǾǸǵǷǻǺȃǭ ǭǹǵDZǯǸǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻ ǵǴDZǭǯǭǸǵ ǹȈ ǗǭǷ ǙȀǴDzǶǯǷǻǺǿDzǷǾǿDzǯǽDzǹDzǺǵ 20 ǙȀǴDzȋǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻǯǞǭǺǷǿǜDzǿDzǽǮȀǽǰDz ǼȃȁȄǾǵǻǻDzǺǾǵ ǻDzǵDzDzǸǿǽǿǽǻǻ ǹȀǴDzȌ ǸǵǿDzǽǭǿȀǽǺǻǰǻ ǼǻǾDzǿǵǿDzǸDzǶ ǻǾǻǮDzǺǺǻǾǿǵ ǞǼDzȃǵȁǵȄDzǾǷǵDz + [The literary-memorial museum ofF.M.Dostoevsky]. Leningrad: ǯDzǷ ǟDzǭǿǽ [Dostoevsky in Russian philosophy and criticism of the end of . [Museum + Theatre].” in Znachenie i vosmoghnosti museev ǴDzǿȈǵ ǺDzǵǴǯDzǾǿǺȈǶ ǵ ǕǴǯDzǾǿǺȈǶ [Around Dostoevsky].” Novyi Mir 1. References 51 [Themuseum in thecontext oftime].” in ǘǵǿDzǽǭǿȀǽǺǻǹDzǹǻǽǵǭǸȉǸǺȈǶ ǹȀǴDzǶ [How we published Dostoevsky].” [Dostoevsky. Known and -30 ǸDzǿ [The Dostoevsky 19 - CEU eTD Collection King, John L., and Margaret L. Hedstrom. 2002. “Onthe LAM: Library, Archieve, and Museum Iskisstvo Kommuny. 1918. “ Hoskins, Janet.Hopper-Greenhill, Eilian. 1992. Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge. 1998. World BiographicalObjects.” of Biography Cultural 1999. “The Marshall. Yvonne and Chris, Gosden, Gorky, Maxim. 1913. “ Objects: How Fyfe,Things Gordon. Tell thePost- in Perspectives 2006. Strategies: Textual in author?.” is an “What 1969. Michel. Foucault, Story “Sociology of People`s and theLives.Foucault, Michel. 1988. “Questions of method.”Social in Politics, philosophy, culture : interviews and AspectsFoucault, Michel. 1967. “Of other spaces. Heterotopias.” (http://www.foucault.info). of Museums.” in A companion to Fedorenko, B. 2003. “ Duncan, Carol, and Alan Wallach. 1980. “The Universal Survey Museum.” Art History 3. Dostoevsky and World Culture. 1993. “ Dimaggio, Paul. 1978. “Social class and arts consumption.” Theory and Society 5:141-161. Coombes, Annie E. 1991. “Ethnography and the formation of national identities.” in The myth Chuikina, S. 2005. “ de Certeau, Michel. 1984. ThePractice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. their and museums art European art: of love 1991. The Darbel. Alain and Pierre, Bourdieu, (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/63/32126054.pdf). Collections in the Creation and Maintenance of Knowledge Communities.” ǷǻǹǹȀǺȈ London: Routledge. 31:169-178. Archaeology museum studies, edited by Sharon Macdonald. Oxford: Blackwell. Press. University Cornell NewYork: Harari. V. Josue by edited Criticism, Structuralist Routledge.York: other writings, 1977-1984 / Michel Foucault 170-175. Kultura, , edited by Lawrence D. Kritzman. New Mirovaya Kultura. of primitivism, edited by Susan Hiller. London: Routledge. Obozrenie. Press. Polity Cambridge: public. , 7. ǽǰDz DzǿǼǭǹȌǿǵ ǹDzǾǿǭ ǑǽȀǰǵDz ǛǗǭǽǭǹǭǴǻǯȆǵǺDz ǺǰȀǭǭǹǶ ȅǷǭȁ ǙǺǻǰǻȀǯǭdzǭDzǹȈǶ ǵǵǰ Ǯ ǵǾǷȀǾǾǿǯDz ǻǮ ǙǵǿǵǺǰ ǾȀǵDzȉǻǾǸǻǯǻ ǏǾǿȀǼǵǿDzǸȉǺǻDz [About Karamazovshina].” Russkoe Slovo 219. [The other sites of memory].” Novoe Literaturnoe 52 [Dearwardrobe].” Dostoevsky iMirovaya [The meeting about art].” [Introduction].” Dostoevsky i ǕǾǷȀǾǾǿǯǻ CEU eTD Collection Lvova, I. 2007. “ 2007. I. Lvova, Lunacharsky, Lunacharsky, Lunacharsky, Anatoly. 1921. “ 1921. Anatoly. Lunacharsky, Linhardt, Dominique. 2008. “A `wild experiment` on the state: the `nature` of the federal Leningradskaya Pravda. 1948.“ scientific of construction social the life: Laboratory 1979. Woolgar. Steve and Bruno, Latour, Latour, Bruno, and Michel Callon. 1982. “Unscrewing the Big Leviathan or how actors macro- Latour, Bruno. 1986. “Visualization and Cognition: Think with Eyes and Hands.” Knowledge Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: observed. Science in world.” the raise Iwill and laboratory a me “Give 1983. Bruno. Latour, Kowalski, Alexandra. 2007. “State power as field work. Culture and practice in the French survey Kovina, Elena. 2001. “ Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. “Biography of things.” in The Social Life of Things. Cambridge: Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard N. Budanova and N. Jakubovich. SPb: Nauka. Correspondence of Jack Kerouac].” in Dostoevsky: materialy i issledovania, 18, edited by 23, edited by O. Shmidt. Moskva: Sovetskaya Enciklopedia. http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/politica/lunachar/lunaa002.htm. artist Leningrad University].” Leningradskaya Pravda 16. the of Department Literature Russian at the session the At writings. Dostoevsky`s of republic of Germany put to the test of guerrilla warfare.”. ǷǭȁDzDZǽȈǽȀǾǾǷǻǶǸǵǿDzǽǭǿȀǽȈǘDzǺǵǺǰǽǭDZǾǷǻǰǻȀǺǵǯDzǽǾǵǿDzǿǭ facts. Beverly Hills: Sage. Karin Knorr-Cetina and Aaron Cicourel. London: Routledge. and Methodology: Toward an integration of Micro- and Macro- Sociologies, edited by structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so.” in Advances in Social Theory and society: studies in the sociology of culture past and present 6:1-40. Oxford University Press. Mulkay. London: Sage. Perspectives on thesocial study ofscience, edited byKarin Knorr-Cetina andMichael Sennett. London: Routledge. Richard and Calhoun by Craig edited Culture, Practicing in landmarks.” historic of Kultura. iMirovaya Dostoevsky F.M.Dostoevsky].” Press. University Cambridge Press. University Ǎ . 1931.“ ǻǿDzǾǵǯ DzDzǵǷǑǗDzǽȀǭǷǭ ǼDzǽDzǼǵǾǷDz ǯ ǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǵǶ ǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǵǶ ǵǺȌ ǷǺǡǙǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻ ǵǷǻǺǭ ǘǵȄǺǭȌ ǜǽǻǿǵǯǵDZDzǭǸǵǴǭȃǵǵǿǯǻǽȄDzǾǿǯǻǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻ ǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǵǶ [Dostoevsky].” in Bolshaya Sovetskaya Enciklopedia, vol. Enciklopedia, Sovetskaya Bolshaya in [Dostoevsky].” , ǭȂDZdzǵǵ ǹȈǾǸǵǿDzǸȉ ǵ ȂȀDZǻdzǺǵǷ ǷǭǷ 53 and 1940-50- [The personal icon of ǰǰ Ȃ [Against idealization the .[Dostoevsky inthe .[Dostoevsky [Dostoevsky asan [Dostoevsky . ǚǭǴǭǾDzDZǭǺǵǵ thinker].” CEU eTD Collection Wetherell, Margaret. 2001. “Introduction.” in Discourse theory and practice, edited by Margaret Volgin, D.1997. “ Tikhomirov, Boris. 2009. “April interview (interviewer - Anna Boldyreva).”. Steinmetz, George, ed. 1999. State/Culture: state-formation after the cultural turn. Ithaca: Cornell Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge. Shiner, Larry. 2001. Theinvention of art. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pushkinksy Dom. 1921. Dom. Pushkinksy Popova, Nina. 1997. “ Ponomareva, A. 2002. Ponomareva, A. 1994. “ Plotkin, 1956. L. “ Perlina, N.2001. “ 1971.“ T. Motyleva, Michaylovsky, N. 1882. “ Marx, Karl. 1992. Capital. London: Penguin books. Marchenko, N. 1984. “ Macdonald, Sharon. 2006. “Expanding museum studies: an introduction.” in A companion to Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor, and Simeon J. Yates. London: Sage. University Press. University Akademicheskaya Tipografia (Pushkinsky Dom). Margolis. SPb. ǸǵǿDzǽǭǿȀǽǺǻǰǻǹȀǴDzȌ Moskva. Moscow]. in F.M.Dostoevsky 2. Kultura Mirovaya i Dostoevsky Dostoevsky].” of experience religious the in Karamazov 150th anniversary of his death].” Leningradskaya Pravda 34. Statiy o Dostoevskom 1971-2001, edited by B. Tichomirov. SPb: Serebrjanyi Vek. [The first posthumous biography of F.M.Dostoevsky -the analysis ofthe sources].” in Gazeta 46. Gazeta Literaturnogo Museia. eksposizia. Prinzipy nauchnogo postroeniya. Moskva: Izdatelstvo GosudarstvennogoIstoriko-literaturnaya in exhibition].” historical-literary the at visualmaterials [The museum studies, edited by Sharon Macdonald. Oxford: Blackwell. ǏǾǿȀǼǵǿDzǸȉǺǭȌǾǿǭǿȉȌ ǡǙ DzǯȌ ǻǹǽǺȌǮǻǽȁȌ ǡǙǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻ ǼǻǾǹDzǽǿǺǭȌǮǵǻǰǽǭȁǵȌ ǜDzǽǯǭȌ ǽǺǯDzǵǺǶ ǾǸǭǯȈ ǯǾDzǹǵǽǺǻǶ ǐǽǭǺǵ ǙȀǴDzǶǷǯǭǽǿǵǽǭǡǙǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻǯǙǻǾǷǯDz ǕǴǻǮǽǭǴǵǿDzǸȉǺȈDzǹǭǿDzǽǵǭǸȈǯǵǾǿǻǽǵǷǻǸǵǿDzǽǭǿȀǽǺǻǶȊǷǾǼǻǴǵȃǵǵ . ǓDzǾǿǻǷǵǶǿǭǸǭǺǿ ǑǻǾǿǻDzǾǷǵǶ Ǽǿ ȀDzǺǰǹǽDzǵǰǺǼǵDzDz ǭǻȈ ǻDZǺǻǰǻ ǽǭǮǻǿȈ ǼǽǵǹDzǽDz Ǻǭ ǹǭǽǷDzǿǵǺǰǭ ǹȀǴDzǶǺǻǰǻ ǛǼȈǿ ǯǺ ǭǭǭǻǯ DzǵǵǴǻǻȈDz ǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻ ǻǼȈǿDz ǽDzǸǵǰǵǻǴǺǻǹ ǯ ǗǭǽǭǹǭǴǻǯ ǕǯǭǺ [Museum marketing: thecaseofaliterary museum].” edited byA. ǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǵǶ : Ƿ [Introduction].” Dostoevsky i Mirovaya Kultura. 150- [The cruel talent].” Otechestennye Zapiski. 1821-1921 [Dostoevsky 1821-1921]. SPb: 1821-1921]. [Dostoevsky 1821-1921 DzǵǾDZȌ ǾǹDzǽǿǵ DZǺȌ Ǿǻ ǸDzǿǵȋ 54 [The facets of the world fame].” Literaturnaya fame].” world ofthe facets [The [F.M. Dostoevsky: tothe [Memorial apartment of - ǺǸǴ ǵǾǿǻȄǺǵǷǻǯǭǺǭǸǵǴ [Ivan CEU eTD Collection Zakharov, V.1994. “ Yaneva, Albena. 2003b. “When a bus met a museum:Yaneva, Albena. 2003a. “Chalk Stepsfollowing onthe Museum Floor: the 'Pulses' of Objects in anArt artists, curators and workers in Mirovaya Kultura 2. Kultura Mirovaya [On the Christian meaning of the main idea in Dostoevsky`s writings].” Dostoevsky i art installation.” Museum and society 1:116-131. Installation.” Journal of Material Culture 8:169-188. ǢǵǿǭǾǻǴǭDzǵǻǺǯǻǵDzǿǻȄǾǯǑǻǾǿǻDzǯǾǷǻǰǻ ǿǯǻǽȄDzǾǿǯǭ ǵDZDzǵ ǻǾǺǻǯǺǻǶ ǴǺǭȄDzǺǵǵ ǢǽǵǾǿǵǭǺǾǷǻǹ Ǜ 55