UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Russophonia: Towards a Transnational Conception of Russian-Language Literature Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3z86s82v Author Caffee, Naomi Beth Publication Date 2013 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Russophonia: Towards a Transnational Conception of Russian-Language Literature A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Slavic Languages and Literatures by Naomi Beth Caffee 2013 © Copyright by Naomi Beth Caffee 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Russophonia by Naomi Beth Caffee Doctor of Philosophy in Slavic Languages and Literatures University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professors David W. MacFadyen and Roman J. Koropeckyj, Co-chairs This dissertation introduces the concept of Russophonia, which refers to the widespread and variegated uses of the Russian language outside of the customary boundaries of ethnicity and nation. Using the designations of Anglophone, Francophone, and Sinophone literature as a model, I propose Russophone literature as an accurate and necessary classification for works that are too often dismissed as peripheral, or at best, awkwardly shoehorned into the existing Russian canon. I further argue that Russophone Studies, as a potential field of academic inquiry, would provide the space for understanding realities outside of an imperial center, and identities beyond a traditional understanding of nationality. The first chapter provides an introduction to Russophonia, illustrating its major issues through an analysis of works by Chingiz Aitmatov (1928–2008), Bakhytzhan Kanap’ianov (b. 1951), and Eduard Bagirov (b. 1975). The subsequent three chapters trace the development of Russophone literature in the Imperial, Soviet, and post-Soviet periods. Chapter 2 dates the ii origins of Russophone literature to the Russian Empire’s colonial expansion into Central Asia and the Caucasus, as the Russian language, Russian institutions, and contact with Russian intellectuals shaped the development of local literatures in the newly colonized areas. I show how early Russophone writers synthesized local literary forms with elements from Russian and West European literatures. I also discuss the processes of Soviet mythmaking by which Mirza Fatali Akhundov (1812–1878), Abai Kunanbaev (1845–1904), and Chokan Valikhanov (1835– 1865) were recast as the foundational figures of national literary traditions in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. In chapter 3 I discuss the proliferation of Russophone literature as a product of the Soviet mandate for proletarian national literatures under the postwar ideology of druzhba narodov, the “friendship of peoples.” I focus on the Soviet Thaw period of the late 1950s and 60s, when postwar decolonization and the beginnings of a postcolonial consciousness in world literature and criticism coincided with Soviet attempts to exert influence over the newly independent states of the so-called Third World. With these issues in mind, I analyze the poetry of the Russophone Kazakh writer Olzhas Suleimenov (b. 1937), who enjoyed the ample privileges of a state- sanctioned writer, but eventually used his position to raise awareness of Soviet oppression and ecological violence. I cast this intersection of Soviet literature and postcolonial awareness as the catalyst for a later wave of nationally charged activism that contributed to the Soviet Union’s eventual disintegration. The concluding chapter examines contemporary literature written in Russian in the independent post-Soviet states, as well as in new “locations” online. At the center of my analysis are two schools of Russophone poetry that arose from the print culture of Soviet Central Asia, but today maintain a parallel, equally significant presence online: the Tashkent School and the iii Fergana School. Although many writers from these schools have emigrated either to the West or to the Russian metropole, they continue to assert a poetic distance/difference from Russia. I conclude by raising several questions for further research: how has an increasingly mobile and transnational world changed what it means to be a Russophone poet? How has technology changed the way poets engage with identity, history, language use, and the literary tradition? Is contemporary Russophone literature evidence of continuing Russian cultural and economic neo- colonialism? iv The dissertation of Naomi Beth Caffee is approved. Olga Kagan Ronald W. Vroon Roman J. Koropeckyj, Committee Co-chair David W. MacFadyen, Committee Co-chair University of California, Los Angeles 2013 iv Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction to Russophonia 1 Chapter 2 – “Enlightened Intercessors”: Russophone Writers in the Nineteenth Century 52 Chapter 3 – Soviet Russophone Writing and Postwar Decolonization 96 Chapter 4 – Russophonia’s Contemporary Frontiers 160 Conclusion – Which man’s burden? The Ongoing Significance of “Carrying” Russian 187 Bibliography 192 v Acknowledgments The central concept of this dissertation originated in a seminar meeting of UCLA’s Mellon Postdoctoral Program in the Humanities. Following a presentation by Mellon Fellow Dr. Sarah Valentine on the twentieth-century poet Gennadii Aigi, who composed in Russian but employed an avant-garde aesthetic of difference based on his Chuvash heritage, Professor Françoise Lionnet raised a provocative question: Could there ever be such a thing as Russophone literature? This is only the beginning of the enormous debt I owe to the UCLA faculty, staff, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students. Foremost among them are the members of my dissertation committee, Professors David MacFadyen, Roman Koropeckyj, Olga Kgan, and Ronald Vroon. I reserve special thanks for Professors MacFadyen and Koropeckyj, who lent me their expertise, support, and boundless patience for the duration of this project. I also thank Professor Altay Göyüşov, Dr. Boris Dralyuk, Rob Denis, Naya Lekht, and P.J. Emery for their indispensible help behind the scenes. Awards from the UCLA Slavic Department, the Center for European and Eurasian Studies, and the US Department of State made it possible for me to travel to Russia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan several times for preliminary research and language study. I am particularly grateful to the UCLA Graduate Division for providing me with a Graduate Research Mentorship, which allowed me to lay the foundation for my project, and later, a Dissertation Year Fellowship in order to complete it. Parts of chapter 3 were originally published as “Identity and Hybridity in Olzhas Suliemenov’s Earth, Hail Man!” in Green Desert: the Poems of Olzhas Suleimenov, ed. Rafis Abazov, (San Diego, CA: Cognella, 2011), 223–229. Dr. Abazov was a great help to me in editing and improving this piece, and I thank him for the opportunity to publish my work. vi Note on Transliteration and Translation The writers I discuss in this dissertation were active not only in the Russian-speaking world, but in a variety of other linguistic spheres as well: Kazakh, Azeri, Turkish, Persian, Chagatay, and even English. Their weathered multiple language and orthographic reforms from the nineteenth century through the Soviet and post-Soviet periods, and was accordingly published in scripts ranging from Arabic to Latin to Cyrillic. As such, they are known by various names, with various transliterations, depending on the contexts in which their work is published or studied. Because the present dissertation is above all concerned with the Russophone identities of these writers, I will be using the Russified versions of their names, under which they published their Russian-language works and by which they were known in the Russophone world. Thus, I refer to the Abai Kunanbaev, rather than Qunanbaev or Qunanbaiuly; Chokan Valikanov, rather than Shoqan Ualikhanuly; Mirza Fatali Akhundov, rather than Axunzadə; and Chingiz Guseinov, rather than Huseinov. For the sake of consistency, toponyms and ethnonyms are likewise listed in their Russophone variants, e.g. Semipalatinsk, not Semei; Kazakh, not Qazaq. Toponyms are given in historical context and transliterated from Russian, e.g. Tiflis (Tbilisi) in the nineteenth century, or Alma-Ata (Almaty) in the twentieth. All in-text quotations from Russian are transliterated from Cyrillic according to the Library of Congress system, without diacritics. All block quotations include a translation as well as the original Cyrillic text. When quoting pre-1917 Russian texts, I have updated the orthography. All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. vii VITA 2004 BA in Russian Grinnell College, Grinnell, IA 2008 MA in Slavic Languages and Literatures University of California, Los Angeles 2009-2012 Teaching Assistant Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures University of California, Los Angeles 2010 C. Phil., Slavic Languages and Literatures University of California, Los Angeles 2011–2012 FLAS Fellowship Center for European and Eurasian Studies University of California, Los Angeles 2012 Graduate Certificate in TESFL Department of Applied Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles 2012– 2013 Dissertation Year Fellowship Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures University of California, Los Angeles 2013 Teaching Fellow Collegium of University Teaching Fellows Office of Instructional Development University of California, Los Angeles viii Chapter 1 Introduction