Terror and Transcendence in the Void: Viktor Pelevin's Philosophy Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Terror and Transcendence in the Void: Viktor Pelevin’s Philosophy of Emptiness By © 2017 Rebecca Stakun M.A., University of Kansas, 2011 B.A., George Washington University, 2006 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Slavic Languages and Literatures and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ________________________________ Chair: Vitaly Chernetsky ________________________________ Co-Chair: Maria Carlson ________________________________ Marc Greenberg ________________________________ Ani Kokobobo ________________________________ Bruce Hayes Date Defended: 4 August 2017 The Dissertation Committee for Rebecca Stakun certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Terror and Transcendence in the Void: Viktor Pelevin’s Philosophy of Emptiness ________________________________ Chair: Vitaly Chernetsky Date Accepted: 4 August 2017 ii Abstract This dissertation explores the Russian experience of the “void” left in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union as it is reflected in Viktor Pelevin’s Chapaev and Pustota (1996), Generation “P” (1999), The Sacred Book of the Werewolf (2004), and Empire “V” (2006). If, as postmodernist theory suggests, there can be no overarching cultural (or other) narratives, then in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse post-Soviet Russia found itself in a void, with no old, established national narrative and no new “Russian idea” to shape future identity. At the very moment when post-Soviet Russians found their identities in greatest flux, communication and the search for identity were complicated by a global “crisis of signification” in which words lost their power to convey meaning about one’s reality. On the semiotic level, postmodernism posited the breakdown of the binary sign (signifier and signified), severing word from meaning and creating “empty signifiers.” The crisis was intensified by the twin realizations that the pervasive symbols of the Soviet regime had become “empty” and meaningless, while the western capitalism and hyperconsumerism that replaced them were equally empty and meaningless. All that was real was the void between signifier and signified. Many contemporary Russian writers engaged the void in their work, seeing it as a negative concept. Pelevin’s novels are unique in their treatment of the void as simultaneously positive and negative, as both emptiness and potentiality. The void (emptiness), as symbol and as philosophical concept, becomes prominent in times of great change that challenge national and individual identities. Historically, the void has played a prominent role in Russian philosophy and literature. It does so again in the post-Soviet period. Pelevin uses the East-West binary to explore Russia’s post-collapse void. East and West are the two most important cultural identities with which Russia has historically engaged. iii Pelevin explores Western values (specifically capitalism and hyperconsumerism) in Generation “P” and Empire “V” and portrays them more negatively. This “negative void” is the emptiness that underlies not only the symbols and language of the now defunct Soviet system, but also the advertisements and language of imported Western models. Both turned out to be simulacra— images with no meaning in reality, a mask over the void. Eastern values predominate in Chapaev and Pustota and The Sacred Book of the Werewolf; Pelevin portrays them more positively. Engaging with Mahāyāna Buddhism, Pelevin seeks to resolve the problems of hypermaterialism, empty signifiers, and pervasive simulacra that plague the West. In Buddhism both signifiers and signifieds are illusory, making the problem of the breakdown of the binary sign moot. Pelevin suggests that emptiness, or the void, offers a possible escape from the conundrum that faces the West by transcending its materialism and its ills. While Pelevin personally favors the eastern Buddhist model of self that embraces the void, he does not recommend that Russia imitate the East, as this would amount to little more than a reversal of Peter the Great’s westernization (and another iteration of Lotman and Uspenskii’s binary cultural model). Pelevin ultimately fails to suggest a new model for Russian national identity in these four novels. The author may still be looking for such a model or, perhaps, the “nothingness” that his search has yielded is his answer. iv Acknowledgments I am forever grateful to my longtime advisor Professor Maria Carlson for the years of patient support and advice that she has shown me throughout my graduate career. This dissertation would not have been possible without her edits, insights, and encouragement. She has imparted countless life lessons that have served me (and will continue to serve me) both inside and outside of academia. I am sincerely grateful to my dissertation advisor Vitaly Chernetsky’s participation on this project—his suggestions and recommended sources greatly shaped this dissertation and my thinking on this topic. I am also indebted to my committee members—Marc Greenberg, Ani Kokobobo, and Bruce Hayes—for their comments and suggestions. I am appreciative of Professor William Lindsey’s willingness to share his time and insights on Buddhism with me. I thank my parents, David and Patricia Stakun, for teaching me the virtue of hard work and instilling in me the value of life-long learning. I also thank my husband Garrett Stults for his constant support and positivity throughout my graduate studies. I would not be here today without his encouragement. Finally, I thank the Richard and Jeannette Sias Graduate Fellowship in the Humanities and the Hall Center for the Humanities for their generous support of my work. This Fellowship allowed me to devote an entire semester to my dissertation and played a critical role in its timely completion. v Notes on Transliteration and Translations This dissertation conforms to the U.S. Library of Congress transliteration system with the exception of last names of famous authors (e.g., Tolstoy, Dostoevsky). The following rules are respected throughout the text: 1. Titles of Russian works and specialized Russian terms and concepts are presented in English translation followed by the Russian in parentheses. 2. The soft sign is not observed for names mentioned in the main text; e.g.: Gogol (not Gogol’); it is observed, however, when names appear in bibliographical footnotes or in transliterating Russian titles. 3. The characters “э” and “ë” will be transliterated as “e.” The character “й” will be transliterated as “i” (not “ĭ”). 4. Buddhist terms follow the Sanskrit transliteration system and not the Pali (with the exception of quotations from works in the Pali canon), therefore: nirvana (not nibbana), Siddhartha Gautama (not Siddhattha Gotama). Diacritical marks have been preserved with the exception of commonly used terms; e.g., nirvāṇa will be written as nirvana. 5. I quote from the English translations of Pelevin’s novels by Andrew Bromfield (Buddha’s Little Finger [Chapaev i Pustota], Homo Zapiens [Generation “P”], and The Sacred Book of the Werewolf) and Anthony Phillips (Empire “V”) and provide the original Russian text in the footnotes. On occasion, I have supplied my own translation to preserve Pelevin’s meaning (noted as either “translation mine” or “translation edited” in the footnote). Translations of all other materials are my own unless otherwise noted. Bromfield’s translations adhere to a different style of transliteration. When quoting his translation, I leave the transliteration of of names in tact but I adhere to the Library of Congress’ system of transliteration; e.g., “Serdyuk” (Bromfield) vs. Serdiuk (LOC). In his translation of Empire “V,” Anthony Phillips capitalizes key “vampire” vocabulary such as “Glamour,” “Discourse,” “Tongue,” etc. In quotations from his edition, I have left these words capitalized, however when I refer to them in the text I leave them in lower-case (as Pelevin himself does). 6. The titles of the novels will be abbreviated in the footnotes as follows: Buddha’s Little Finger = BLF Chapaev and Pustota = CIP Empire “V”: Povest’ o nastoiashchem sverkhcheloveke = EVPNS Empire “V”: The Prince of Hamlet = EVPH Generation “P” = GP Homo Zapiens = HZ The Sacred Book of the Werewolf = SBW Sviashchennaia kniga oborotnia = SKO vi For June vii Table of Contents Abstract……………..………………….……………………………….………………………………..iii Acknowledgements..……………………………………………………...………………………...…...v Notes on Transliteration and Translations ................................................................................ vi Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 The Void ..................................................................................................................................... 5 The Void Between East and West .............................................................................................. 9 Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................ 11 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 11 Literature Survey ...................................................................................................................... 12 Challenges ................................................................................................................................