!It • •, • • " " " •It It The Mistakes of the Infallible: It The Internal Conflict of Eastern European Communist Intellectuals • Senior Honors Thesis • Department of Sociology .> Advisor: Professor Veljko Vujacic .\ • By Monica Lee ,•~ t t t t ~ t ~. ~. ~ • •D • • • • ...,fIlM Table of Contents fir Chapter 1: Introduction 1 .. fIlM Chapter 2: Arthur Koestler 24 .,• Undetermined Socia-Economic Class 27 ., Uncertain Homeland 33 Lack of Social Relationships 37 • Comfort in Intellectual Circles 40 .. The Spiritual and Social Need for Communism 42 The "Closed System" of Communist Logic 44 "• Koestler's Justification of the Party 48 • The "Closed System" Expressed in Darkness at Noon 52 Rubashov's Use of the Logical System 57 ".- Rubashov's Dialogues with Ivanov 59 .-.. The Power of Reason in the Mind of the Intellectual 64 .- I' Chapter 3: Czeslaw Milosz 68 Confused Class Membership 70 .. Unceitain Homeland and Culture 72 .. The Instability of his Home Town 78 ..e- Lack of Social Relationships 80 .. Comfort in Intellectual Groups 83 .. The Captive Mind 87 .. The Pill of Murti-Bing 89 ... Ketman 91 .. Alpha, the Moralist 97 .. Beta, the Disappointed Lover 101 ... Gamma, the Slave of History 104 $Ii Delta, the Troubadour 108 .. Devotion to Party Logic and Practice of Ketman Among Polish .. Intellectuals 111 .. Chapter 4: Conclusion 121 .. ~ Works Cited 128 .. 2 .. ~. ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ Chapter 1: Introduction ~ • In this thesis, I will explore the reasons why intellectuals, who are thought to be critical •~ of all governmental regimes, historically espoused revolutionary politics and communism. I will •~ also elucidate how the "closed system" oflogic in communist theory compels "free-floating" ~ D intellectuals to adhere to a dogmatic belief in the historical mission of the proletariat and justifY ~ revolutionary violence and the violent means used by the Communist Party to transform society. •~ In order to answer these questions, I will examine the literature and autobiographies of two Central European authors-Arthur Koestler and Csezlaw Milosz. First I will show that both •~ t authors were in fact "free-floating" intellectuals, who were not firmly based in a socio-economic ~ class or a single profession. Neither author came from or drew the influence of a single ~ ~ " homeland. Each writer spent extensive time outside of his home country and was exposed to a ~ variety of cultures. Finally, neither man had solid interpersonal relationships that inhibited his •~ travels and adventures or anchored him firmly in a location or social circle. This unique social ~ position provided them with no definite class or national interests. Thus, Koestler and Milosz ~ ~ depended on logic and the consensus of intellectual circles to develop their political positions. Theories of communism, which were rational and logical, became their political guide . .•~ ~ Using the same works of both authors, I will investigate the significance of the "closed ~ ~ system" of logic within communist theory that allowed intellectuals to justifY revolutionary ~ violence and the violent deeds of the Party. When witnessing and even practicing the violence· ~ • required of revolution and a transition to communism, both men referred back to their belief in • / the historical mission of the proletariat. So long as the Party represented the interests of the ~ • • ~ 3 • rl .'~: J't proletariat, it could be "formally" wrong but not "dialectically" wrong. Intellectuals, therefore, .,; had a moral and intellectual obligation to support and obey tbe party, whether or not it made .,: rl mistakes. For these intellectuals, the only true logical error or political mistake was to disobey I .1I the Party. .1 The intellectual role has been performed by thinkers, writers, and artists in all but the .'! .1. I most primitive human societies, but the "intelligentsia" as a status group did not appear until the .,.tJl!1 seventeentb and eighteentb centuries. In the late nineteenth century, tbe intelligentsia became an 1IIIIIifi;.. ; V"'-, undeniably potent social and political force when.tbeories of revolution, liberation, and . •fIE communism offered ideological guidelines for social change. Sociologists have examined intellectuals from a variety of perspectives, yet these "enlightened" individuals have proven f!P'" ", difficult to describe as a cohesive social group. •, Most sociologists agree that the intellectual's task in society is to produce, evaluate, and ., distribute culture and advocate moral standards. They should view tbe world objectively, expose • the lies and hidden motives of those in power and criticize the malevolent actions of the • government. Intellectuals have often functioned as tbe "conscience" of society and have • opposed established authority. •f!Jfi' Analytically, however, the debate about intellectuals is much more fractious. •r Sociologists have offered a multitude of explanations of what type of social group intellectuals -. •<iIF comprise and thus, why intellectuals take a critical stance toward autbority. For instance, Lewis -. S. Feuer proposes in his article "What is an Intellectual?" tbat the intelligentsia is a section oftbe •~-.'. 1 ., educated or professional class. George Konrad and I van Szelenyi argue that the Eastern • -,.,--" 'Lewis S. Feuer, "What is an Intellectual?" in The Intelligentsia and the Intellectuals, ed. Aleksander Gella (London: SAGE, 1976),49. .,• 4 • European intelligentsia formed its own "government-bureaucratic ruling class.,,2 However, since · \ I intellectuals come from a variety of class backgrounds, do not practice a common religion, and do not participate in the process of production, these positions do not seem tenable. Since the intelligentsia is difficult to define in terms of class, religion, profession, or other conventional criteria of social stratification, an understanding of the sociological condition of the intelligentsia requires a thorough examination. Lewis Coser's account of the historical development of intellectual society, Karl Mannheim's analysis of free-floating or "socially unattached" intellectuals, and Alvin Gouldner's examination of the discourse of intellectual circles, enables us to define intellectuals sociologkally as a status group. Intellectuals exemplify Max Weber's definition of a status group because they are united by high regard for their education and common ideas rather than a shared economic situation. According to Weber, "In contrast to the purely economically determined 'class situation' we wish to designate as 'status situation' every typical component of the life fate of men that is determined by a specific, positive or negative, social estimation of honor. This honor may be connected with any quality shared by a plurality.,,3 Both propertied and propertyless people can belong to the same status group. Although ascribed social position and occupation are often considered criteria for membership in status groups, they are not necessarily criteria for all status groups. What is important is that the individuals in the group share a specific style of life. Intellectuals demonstrate their cohesion as a status group specifically in the way they exhibit solidarity: they form a community around self-ascribed honor on the basis of their common educational and ideological heritage, and exclude outsiders in order to form a cohesive group: 2 George Konrad and Ivan Szelenyi, The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power, trans. Andrew Arata and Richard· E. Allen (New York and London,: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979), 10. 3 Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in SOCiology. trans. and ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 186·187. 5 Lewis Coser states that intellectuals occupy a unique place in society because of their detachment from the process of production and a world view dictated by their social situation. He argues that intellect, as distinguished from the intelligence required in the arts and sciences presumes a capacity to move beyond the pragmatic tasks of the moment and commit to comprehensive values transcending professional or occupational involvement. Whereas intelligent individuals seek to "grasp, manipulate, re-order, and adjust, the intellectual examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, and imagines.,,4 Unlike men in the professions and elsewhere who concern themselves with finding concrete answers to concrete problems, intellectuals feel compelled to look beyond immediate tasks and penetrate the more general realm of meanings and values. They are more concerned with understanding the type of society that should exist than functioning within the boundaries and according to the standards set by any current regime. According to Coser, the social position of the intellectual can be compared in some ways to that of the medieval court jester. The intellectual's position outside of the social hierarchy, like the court jester's, removes him of certain societal privileges, but grants him the freedom to Pc Pc criticize the established order. The role of the jester was to defY the limitations of the current ..,- social structure. He could express the most inconvenient truths without fear of retaliation; he p flit could question what everybody accepted as fact as long as it was hidden under the guise of r amusement. But his amusements upset the men of power who were committed to the serious • business of government and reacted ambivalently to critic.ism. •p The intellectual is akin to the jester not only because he claims the freedom of unfettered