Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Nikolai Gogol''s Self-Fashioning in the 1830s: The Postcolonial Perspective Author(s): Yuliya Ilchuk Source: Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 51, No. 2/3, THE 200TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH OF NIKOLAI GOGOL'/MYKOLA HOHOL' (1809-1852) ( June-September 2009), pp. 203-221 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871407 Accessed: 21-10-2015 18:15 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871407?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions YuliyaIlchuk Nikolai Gogor's Self-Fashioningin the 1830s: The PostcolonialPerspective Abstract: Thisstudy examines Gogol"s complexself-fashioning during the time of the creationand reception of his Ukrainiantales Vecherana khutorebliz Dikariki [Evenings on a Farmnear Dikan'ka] (1831-1832) in lightof thepostcolonial concept of mimicry. Gogol"s self-fashioning is studiedthrough his submissionto the symbolicpower responsiblefor branding him as theOther in imperialRussian culture, as well as through his deliberatestrategy of mimicry.Not onlydid Gogol"s marginalsocial statusand his Ukrainianethnicity create a social hierarchyresponsible for fashioninghim as "an outsiderwithin" imperial culture, Gogol' himself engaged in thecolonial mimicry, trying to reversethe colonialgaze thatimagined him as a "sly" Ukrainian.Challenging the acceptedview of Gogol' as one who internalizedthe colonial stereotypeof a "sly" Ukrainian,this study treats Gogol"s identityas strategic,positional, and ambivalent.The firstpart of thestudy focuses on themanipulation of stereotypesof theOther within the Russiannationalist imagination in theearly 1830s; the secondpart examines Gogol" s ambivalentvisual self-representationand social performancethat simultaneously mimickedand menaced the colonial authority. Theearly years of Gogol" s careerwere marked by the negotiation of his cultural identitywithin Russian cultural and social space. This negotiationrequired continualchanging and adjustmentof Gogol"s culturalperformances and resultedin his representationby imperialsociety as the Other.Not only did Gogol"s marginalsocial statusand his Ukrainianethnicity create a social hierarchyresponsible for fashioninghim as the hybridwho is always "an outsiderwithin" imperial culture, but Gogol' immersedhimself in thecolonial mimicry,trying to reversethe colonial gaze thatimagined him as a "sly" Ukrainian.The theoreticalframework of this studyis informedby Steven Greenblatt'sconcept of self-fashioning1 and Homi Bhabha's theoretizationof mimicry,2which can be effectivelyapplied to Gogol"s complexself-fashioning In hisstudy Renaissance Self-Fashioning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), the scholarhas claimed that"self-fashioning is achieved in relationto something perceivedas alien,strange, or hostile...;self-fashioning always involves some experience of threat,some effacementor undermining,some loss of self...; we maysay thatself- fashioningoccurs at thepoint of encounter between an authorityand an alien,that what is producedin thisencounter partakes of boththe authority and thealien that is markedfor attack."Greenblatt 9. In a nutshell,mimicry discloses "the desire for a reformed,recognizable Other, as a subjectof a differencethat is almostthe same,but not quite."Mimicry exercises its authorityover the colonial Other; however, its ambivalence arises from the fact that the CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. LI, Nos. 2-3, June-September2009 This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 204 YULIYA ILCHUK duringand immediately after the publication of his Ukrainian tales - Vecherana khutorebliz Dikariki[Evenings on a Farmnear Dikan'ka] (1831-1832). Both conceptscan elucidatehow Gogol" s hybrididentity was fashionedas theOther bothby itssubmission to thesocial power and knowledge of theempire and by his self-consciousstrategy of mimickingthis power. Throughout this process, Gogol'arose as themimic man who "passed" as a Russiansociety man through theadoption of thelanguage, cultural behaviour and dressof imperialculture. However,the very act of mimickingsplit him as theOther when he consumed and inscribedRussianness upon and withinhimself. Being a weak copyof the original,the mimic man "becomes transformed into an uncertaintywhich fixes the colonial subject as a "partial presence."3Gogol' appropriatedthe performativeidentity strategies of mimicryto gain inclusioninto the diverse imperialand national spaces of Russia.His hybrididentity was fashionedas the colonial/ethnicOther through discourses and practicesof transgressionand imposture.Gogol' was quiteunique in thishybridization; although many non- Russianmigrants participated in a varietyof boundarycrossings, many of them refashionedthemselves, trying to eradicatetheir ethnic and social differenceby adoptingimperial disguises.4 In contemporaryGogol' studies,the writer'snegotiation of his national identityin the 1830s has been usuallydiscussed within the frameworkof colonialtheory, as onethat proceeded along the lines of the powerful tradition of 5 kotliarevshchyna.Many scholarshave emphasizedthat Gogol' not only continuedthis tradition by presentingUkraine in compliancewith the imperial paradigm,but also internalizedthe colonial stereotype of a "sly"Ukrainian by playingthe fool through the mask of a simple-heartedUkrainian narrator Rudy colonial subject is always "partial," "incomplete," and "virtual" in its representation. Bhabha, "Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse," in The Location of Culture(London: Routledge, 1994) 88. 3 Bhabha 86. For example,Nestor Kukol'nik,Gogol" s classmate fromthe NizhynLyceum, presentsa more typical case of Romantic self-fashioning.Kukol'nik made the Renaissance Italian poet Torquato Tasso a role model in his literarycareer. In tune with literaryfashion, he oftenassumed the mask of Tasso, which laterwon him fame in the top aristocraticsalons. The mask of Tasso helped Kukol'nikbecome accepted into elite Russian literarysociety, despite his Ukrainianorigin and provincialeducation. 5 This traditionis a referenceto the Ukrainian author Ivan Kotliarevs'kyiwho in his travestyof Virgil's Aeneid developed a model of Ukrainian identitythat allowed the authorto mock the imperialcenter "without direct risk." See George Grabowicz's article "Between Subversion and Self-Assertion:The Role of Kotliarevshchynain Russian- UkrainianLiterary Relations," in Culture,Nation, and Identity:The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1 600-1945), edited by Andreas Kappeler et al. (Edmonton: Canadian Instituteof UkrainianStudies Press,2003) 215-228. This content downloaded from 171.64.45.96 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:15:41 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Nikolai Gogol" s Self-Fashioningin the 1830s 205 Pan'ko.6It has becomea commonplaceto considerGogol' sly and dodgyby nature7and to thinkof the mask of Pan'koas themarketing strategy used by the writerto capitalizeon a fashionableliterary tradition of the time.8 Thus, George Luckyj applied Pletnev's characterizationof Ukrainiansas sly careerists (prolazd)to Gogol',arguing that the writer sought "to cash in on theUkrainian vogue" as most of the otherUkrainian writers of the period.9Similarly, Bojanowskahas assertedthat Gogol' "fullyembraced" the classic Russian stereotypeof Ukrainiansas "sly malorossy"by "hidingsubversive actions or meaningsbehind a maskof naïve obtuseness."10Myroslav Shkandrij also has characterizedGogol" s oeuvreas one existingharmoniously in the imperial culture,while at thesame time emphasizing the unexpected result that Vechera hadproduced. According to thescholar, Gogol" s talesnot only pleased Russian elitesbut also presenteda "resistantUkrainian identity" as a case of "imperial indigestion."11Although both Shkandrij and Bojanowskastress that Gogol"s malorossiistvorevealed resistantcultural behaviour that provoked the hierarchicalimperial structures, their analysis has remainedconfined by the colonialtheory, resulting in the view of Gogol' as the"sly maloross" By placing responsibilityfor legitimization of the colonialstereotype on Gogol' himself, thisview is basedon essentialism,or theidea thatthere was somethinginherent inGogol" s identity.In contrastto thisview, this study treats Gogol" s identityas strategic,positional, and always in process. The writerhad escaped identificationin terms of "either"/"or"and creativelyplayed out this ambiguity inhis self-fashioning. The taskof the present study is twofold.First, it presentsthe history of the creationand receptionof the fictionalpersona