Hoffman presents the Soviet Union much like any other state in Europe during the post enlightenment era of the 19th and 20th centuries: development oriented, with a focus on medical and industrial innovation, especially among the peasant class. Hoffman points out, however, that Russia (first Imperial, then Soviet) arrived “late to the party” so to speak when compared to their European counterparts. The peasants in France took it upon themselves to cast off the shackles of the monarchy at the end of the 18th century, while Great Britain systemically phased out the power of the monarchy through a series of elections, rendering the King all but a figurehead by the beginning of the First World War. Russia, however, despite attempts in the middle of the 18th century to make systematic changes, did not, as a whole, begin to develop as their European counterparts until the overthrow of the Tsar in 1917. Despite Soviet Russia’s late arrival to the development game played by their western counterparts, and their constricted form of government that ostensibly disqualified the USSR from consideration as a state that achieved modernity, Hoffman cites many parallels of development in Soviet Russia that mirror developments elsewhere in Europe. The most important of these parallels in development is the concept of scientism (the organization of all social, political, and economic endeavors under a scientific norm) which Hoffman discusses early on in his article. The Soviet Union, despite its communist organization and totalitarian regime, enacted many of the same governmental practices as their counterparts, including their “social welfare policies, economic consolidation and planning, and machine age utopiasim.” Hoffman therefore shows the reader a striking, and oft ignored series of similarities among the countries of Europe and the way in which they developed alongside one another. He also highlights the horrors of such development when he mentions the raw strength of science and the level headed critical thinking the practice is akin to provided both logical justification for the Holocaust, and the chemical component (Zyklon B) for its gas chambers, hinting at the horror of humanity in his conclusion, particularly how society, being machine-like in nature, tends to set itself on a path to destruction when it intended the achievement of an ideal society, much like the Soviet Union derailing on its quest for perfection (unattainable ideals as Hoffman puts it) in the postmodern era.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
The Modernity Debate
In the article “European Modernity and Soviet Socialism,” David Hoffman strives to eradicate the notion of Russia being unique in comparison with other European countries (and therefore backwards and uncivilized). While Russia did not follow the path of “…liberal democracy and industrial capitalism which characterized the political and economic systems of England, France, and the United States,” (Hoffman, 245) Russia certainly can be perceived as modern, if only the very definition of modernity be broadened.
Hoffman notes that in Western Europe, the definition of modernity and what constitutes as “modern” is very specific. Modernity in this instance entails the development of nation-states, the establishment of parliamentary procedures, and the spread of industrial capitalism. By this definition, Russia is certainly not modern. Subsequently, Hoffman argues that “…it is important to consider more universal trends associated with the coming of modernity. A number of aspects of Soviet socialism paralleled developments throughout Europe during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries” (Hoffman, 245). Indeed, several ideals commonplace in Enlightenment thought are very prevalent in Russia. The belief in progress, faith in reason, veneration of science, and the disparagement of religion and tradition all characterized the Soviet system in various ways, as Hoffman continuously demonstrates.
Hoffman offers countless instances of Soviet modernity initiatives that were replicated all over Europe and in the United States. For example, the Soviets focused especially on the study of Eugenics. Eugenics is the belief that by sorting through and rooting out deficiencies (both mental and physical) found in humans, a new and vastly improved race could be achieved. While Germany certainly took this study and used it as justification for their racial cleanse, the United States expressed interest in Eugenics as well. Specifically, “In 1907 the state of Indiana passed a law that allowed sterilization of the ‘degenerate’ and in 1927 the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of compulsory sterilization ” (Hoffman, 254-255). Simultaneously, a strong Eugenics movement developed in the Soviet Union. Though this is a specific example, Hoffman’s point is made extremely clear. Russia can easily be seen as modern, once a definition is expanded. The idea of modernity can include a wide array of requirements or stipulations. By broadening our definition, Hoffman states we are better enabled to explain the wide array of modern proposals designed to reorder society on a rational basis.
Modernity and Soviet Socialism
David Hoffman’s article analyzes the meanings of what it means to be a modern state and how the Soviet Union has historically fit into this definition. A modern state is recognized as a nation-state that has developed a system of parliamentary democracy and a social and economic system based on industrial capitalism (Hoffman, 246). He acknowledges that the Soviet Union did not develop at the same rate or way compared to its European counterparts, particularly France and England. Hoffman argues that although the Soviet Union remained an autocracy until 1917 and had distinct political and social systems, it did develop several characteristics and fundamental ideas during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century that Hoffman aligns with modernity. These developments include mass politics and a greater effort by the state to regulate and quantify the state’s population.
Many Soviet policies show development of mass politics and while it was not on the same scale as the French Revolution, Soviet propaganda, demonstrations, and campaigns were all focused on involving the greater public. The ultimate goal of involving and integrating the greater population into political structures was to create a society that was both conscience and cultured (Hoffman, 247). One particularly interesting development is that the Soviet Union became increasingly concerned with the capacity and health of society. Officials became interested in factors such as working conditions, urban planning, social hygiene and the spread of disease (Hoffman, 253). The Soviet Union took interest in the welfare and behavior of society later than many other countries in Western Europe, however this development and control of social welfare programs allowed the state the calculate population statistics and potential capabilities in both economic and military sectors as these areas were in the interest of national security (Hoffman, 250-251).
Hoffman closes his analysis with the argument that the developments mentioned above paired with the socialist ideology were unable to keep up and evolve with the Soviet Union’s European counterparts as they moved into the postmodern era. This was partly a result of the Soviet Union’s inability to successfully promote new technology and service sectors (Hoffman, 257).
The Holocaust: A product of modern society?
Is the Holocaust a failure or product of modern society? Bauman in the first chapter of his book Modernity and the Holocaust argued the Holocaust represented the darker possibilities of modern civilized life. Using the bureaucracy and social engineering utilized by the Nazis to create a judenfrei Europe as evidence to support his claims, Bauman stipulated that the Holocaust existed as an extension of modern civilization. This thesis contradicts a mainstream theory of sociology, i.e. the prevailing notion that the Holocaust was a failure, not a product, of modern society. However, the bureaucracy, industrial complex pattern, and, rational efficiency all utilized by the Nazi’s to exterminate the Jewish people relate to Weber’s characteristics of modern society. All of these characteristics differentiate the Holocaust and put it in a unique place as the first example of modern genocide. In essence, Bauman argued that Nazi’s followed the precursor’s of all the traits encouraged in modern society to their rational, if not moral, conclusion.
In support of his overall thesis that the Holocaust was a product of modernity , Bauman pointed out the path of the Nazi plans to remove Jews from their territory. By presenting the gas chambers and concentration camps as the logical conclusion to what might have been a costly relocation project, the extermination of millions of people became a rational, cost cutting plan to realize Hitler’sThird Reich. By dehumanizing the Jewish people and making them another quirk in the system to be solved as efficiently as possible, the involvement of normal German citizens becomes comprehensible. The people outlining the plans for the gas chambers could remain distant and claim to be merely following orders, similar to the SS officers responsible for mobile killing. Everyone was just listening to their superior, and therefore not responsible for the greater outcome, similar to the necessity of a well-oiled cog in a factory machine.
The common notion that civilization has somehow advanced beyond the barbarism and savagery of the past becomes a falsity if Bauman remains correct. Moreover, the factors of the Holocaust remain a normal part of the makeup of modern society. Reason and logic failed to eliminate violence, instead they merely amplified and facilitated the ability of humanity to exterminate an undesirable, regardless of any moral quandary.
Role of Christianity in the Development of Russia
Why did Vladimir adopt Christianity, and why did he decide to convert the Russian people as well? Although his mother, Olga, also adopted Christianity during her rule, she did not attempt to convert her people. What political factors influenced Vladimir in his choice to convert the people, as opposed to Olga’s choice to leave them to their pagan faith? Vladimir was canonized and remembered for his grand “baptism of Russia” – wouldn’t Olga want to be remembered in that way as well? True, Vladimir was looking to unite Russia and to develop a strong national culture, but I assume these desires would be present in Olga’s time too. I’m curious about the timing of this Grand Baptism, particularly because similar conversions were taking place in Poland, Denmark, Hungry, and Norway as well. How did Christianity spread so quickly in this particular time period, and not earlier?
Religion undoubtably plays a strong role in a state’s identity, and the Kievan Russians’ acceptance of Christianity both opened up opportunity for exposure to Byzantine culture, while also creating a firm separation from the Roman Catholic Church. How would Russia’s history be changed if Christianity came to the land from Rome and not from Byzantium? Would the same Russian suspicions of the West be present? If Russia had joined the Roman Catholic Church instead of remaining outside of it (and therefore remaining outside of Latin civilization as a whole), an entirely different Russia could have formed.
At what point does the Church begin to threaten a ruler’s power rather than aide it? The adoption of Christianity helped Vladimir in uniting his people just as it did for his son, Iaroslav, but there must come a point when people unite under religion to tear down an autocrat. Religious beliefs cannot always be in line with a ruler’s need for control, and I wonder if Vladimir harbored fears of this mass conversion threatening his future as the ruler of Russia.
With God On Our Side
One of the most prevalent imageries depicted through the course of these stories is the inclusion of God and religious allusions, but specifically in the context of good and evil. This is especially noticeable when discussion battles, where the writers of the story (supposedly those who survived and flourished after these events) had God backing them and their cause; while the others were backed by evil. This is exemplified in multiple stories, such as on page 22 when the author claims that “While Vladimir was desirous of attacking Iaroslav, the latter sent overseas and imported Varangian reinforcements, since he feared his father’s advance. But God will not give the devil any satisfaction. For when Vladimir fell ill, Boris was with him at the time.” This shows that the author believed that what happened in history occurred because God was backing these results. Similarly, on page 25, “God had let loose the pagans upon us because of our transgressions, the Russian princes fled and the Polovtsians were victorious.” This exhibits both values because it shows the prevalence of religious thinking in the interpretations of the people of the time who were experiencing those events. In terms of power, it showed that the leaders of the time were thought of to have the backing of the Gods, and that they themselves (and their decisions that they made for their population) were blessed to a certain extent. Evidently this altered over time as the populous gained more control of their leadership, but for some time the decisions of the leaders were the only decisions acceptable backed by the Gods.
Validity Behind Saint Boris and the Rest of the Chronicle
While this is not a novel concept, it is important to emphasize how history can be skewed to a certain party’s interest or message. For the purposes of this class, this can be directly related to The Primary Chronicle. While this document is clearly biased toward the Christian faith, it is one of the very few documents in existence that records any type of history of Rus’. Sadly, this source is questionable due to its Christian references.
One excerpt, describing the dissension among the princes of the Rus’ dating 1012-1054, is particularly interesting regarding the blatant Christian propaganda it contains. This excerpt is fascinating because of the boldness in which its author placed Christian messages, leaving the story’s accuracy up for debate. For example, when explaining the execution of Boris, it states:
These emissaries came to the Alta, and when they approached they heard the sainted Boris singing vespers. For it was already known to him that they intended to take his life. Then he arose and began to chant, saying ‘Oh Lord, how are they increased who come against me! Many are they that arise up agaisnt me’ (Ps. iii.1) . . . . After finishing vespers, he prayed, gazing upon the icon, the image of the Lord, with these words: ‘Lord Jesus Christ, who in this image has appeared on earth for our salvation, and who, having voluntarily suffered thy hands to be nailed to the Cross, didst endure thy passion for our sins, so help me now to endure my passion. For I accept it not from those who are my enemies, but from the hands of my own brother. Hold it not against him as a sin, oh Lord!’
In this quote from The Primary Chronicle, it is quite clear how the language of the document very similarly resembles the language found in the Bible. Additionally, it is remarkable to note how the narrator retells how the emissaries find Boris, along with Boris’ final words. It is very skeptical that they found “the sainted Boris” in the middle of vespers, and even more dubious that Boris’ final words were so aligned with holy scripture.
It is rather apparent that the monks which wrote The Primary Chronicle had more for in mind than simply recording history as it originally happened. They instead wanted to weave Christianity into history in order to solidify the truth behind their religion, which in turn, rendering historians today to question which parts of the Chronicle can be trusted as accurate.
Kievan Rus’ & Pravda Russkaia
The Pravda Russkaia, or the law code of Kievan Rus’, has a very interesting and unique mixture of possible offenses and punishments, some of which are logical, while others are not. For example, Point 9 states that “If someone unsheathes a sword, but does not strike anyone,then he pays 1 grivna.” This offense is somewhat similar to laws about carrying a weapon with out a permit. Another example is point 12, which states that “if someone rides on someone else’s horse, not having asked him for permission, then he is to provide three grivnas.” This law is similar to that of auto theft. These laws shows that the Kievan Ru’s “state” had some idea of what was right and wrong, even showing similarities to modern statutes.
Additionally to these logical laws, the laws also show signs of a modern judicial system. Some of the crimes explicitly state that a witness must be found if there was one present. This third party individual would aid in solving the dispute, as well as helping determine if someone is guilty or innocent.
However, some of these laws have penalties that do not fit the crime. For example, article 7 says that one must pay 3 grivnas for cutting of a man’s finger, but must pay four times that amount for cutting a man’s mustache, which is stated in article 8. While it is understandable that cutting a man’s beard be an offense in a culture where a beard and/or mustache is sacred, cutting a finger off could potentially kill a man due to infection, as well as severely hinder him and his ability to do labor. Another odd punishment is that of article one, which states that one must pay 40 grivnas, which is the same exact amount for cutting a man’s arm off, even if it does not kill him.
Overall, Kievan Rus’ code of law is much more advanced than I originally had thought it would be, despite some odd penalties and punishments for crimes.
Modernity: Crop Tops or Mindless Bureaucracy?
In Bauman’s article, Modernity and the Holocaust, it is questioned whether the Holocaust was a social phenomena or the culmination of European antisemitism. Genocide is a ‘normal’ aspect of human civilization, one group reaches a point where it believes it is necessary to eliminate the other. Often this is carried out by senseless violence and bloodshed, Rwanda for example. It is a logical conclusion that the Holocaust occurred due to ethnic and religious hatred, yet, the murder of millions of Jews was carried out by a systematic, and well-oiled machine, the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is something that has exploded in modern life, and with it came the Holocaust. As Bauman states, “whatever moral instinct is to be found in human conduct is socially produced. It dissolves once society malfunctions” (Bauman 4). In the case of Nazi Germany, the people were willing to give up many freedoms and power to achieve normality in their lives given the turbulence following WWI. The Jews were a common scapegoat. The leaders of Germany made it morally acceptable to its soldiers and citizens to commit the Holocaust by making violence authorized, routine, and dehumanizing the victims. Given this, the everyday man could have a hand in a mass murder. Only 10% or so of SS men were sadistic or considered madmen, most were normal men, the accountant down the street, the salesman, the father of four. Men no longer felt responsible for their actions when they were following orders, the man who gave the order to kill did not pull the trigger and did not feel responsible, he merely signed a piece of paper. The man who did pull the trigger felt no responsibility as the actions were not his own, he was merely following orders, being a good soldier.
The Holocaust could not have occurred without the chain of bureaucracy, which is a development of modernity. The Holocaust was a failure of modernity, the bureaucratic system was corrupted, used for unthinkable cruelty, yet was utilized to its utmost potential. The Holocaust is a product of the modern world, no longer is it necessary to run through a village brandishing torches and pitchforks to remove undesirables, you merely have to file the proper paper work to send millions to their graves. This is the triumph of the modern world.
Modernity and the Holocaust
Zygmunt Baumans’ article provides the reader a look at the sociological aspect of modernity and the holocaust. In his article, Bauman mixes “modernity” and ‘sociological behavior” together while using the Holocaust to look at human behavior. Bauman argues that the Holocaust is another chapter in modern society. Like many events that preceded the Holocaust, violence, in Bauman’s mind, was a “constitutive feature of Modern Civilization” and that the “Holocaust-style phenomena must be recognized as legitimate outcome of civilizing tendency.” (Bauman Pg 28) He thinks that because of how humans interact with one another, how each individual thinks differently, and how each individual solves problems differently, humanity will always be doomed to use violence from time to time to solve its problems. For example, he believed that the Holocaust had a feeling of familiarity from its past. He uses the “slaughter of Albigensian heretics” and “the British invention of concentration camps during the Boer War” as examples of how the Holocaust took a familiar path from other events in history.
Bauman provides his audience with a valid argument in that the Holocaust became another example of how human behavior tends to lead toward violence from time to time. As society has and will continue to advance, humans will continue to fight over various issues. Over the course of time, Humanity has seen violence over Religion, imperialism, politics, and present day terrorism. In the 20th and 21st centuries, humans continue to fight over natural resources and politics. These conflicts over natural resources and politics have led to two global conflicts and many more small scaled wars. Whatever the reason may be, the fact that violence continues today makes a strong case for Baumans argument that humans will continue to fight and the Holocaust was another chapter in modern societies.
Bauman used the term “Modernity” to describe the social beliefs humans have and will have toward the world. He used it in a way that helped him explain how the legacy of the Holocaust became another example of human tendencies toward violence, like predeceasing conflicts before it.