Tag Archives: soviet nationality policy

Life’s a Circus

Posted on by
Theatrical poster for Circus

Theatrical poster for Circus

The 1936 Russian Soviet film, Circus, directed by Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, tells the story of a famous American performer, Marion Dixon, as she flees from the United States after persecution from giving birth to a black child. She goes with a corrupt theatrical agent, Franz von Kneishitz, who looks suspiciously like Adolf Hitler, to Russia where she becomes a circus performer. After falling in love with another performer, Ivan Petrovich Martinov, von Kneishitz becomes jealous and not only prevents her from staying with Petrovich, but actively abuses Marion, despite claiming to love her.

The comedy-musical film is vibrant and silly, but it has serious undertones that are reflected through the characters. Marion’s guilt and shame is clear on her face whenever she’s not on stage. When she’s performing, she puts on a face that she thinks will please the people around her. Marion is constantly worried about the truth of her child coming out that when she has to choose between staying at the circus with Petrovich and leaving with von Kneishitz or else have the truth revealed, she goes even though she will be miserable.

The climax of the film is a final scene when von Kneishitz reveals her child as a product of Marion being a “mistress of a Negro” to the audience of the circus. He calls it wrong and that she should be expelled from society, but the audience just responds with laughter as they take the child from him and pass the boy around to keep him from von Kneishits’ grasp. The director comes up to him and explains that all children are welcome in the Soviet Union, “whether they have white skin, black skin, or red skin.” This is a critique of American society and the racism that exists there, but not in the Soviet Union where race is unimportant. This ties in with our discussions on how soviets viewed nationality as important, but not race because it is a trait that cannot be changed. The final scene is also a blatant message of nationalism, where the people, among them Marion, Petrovich, and the black boy, are marching in a parade to celebrate the glory and equality of the Soviet Union.

Come one, come all

Posted on by

Aleksandrov and Simkov’s 1936 work of “Circus” combines the elements of farce, comedy, vaudeville, and melodrama in order to produce a ubiquitously enjoyable, light-hearted tale of heroism in the face of adversity laced with prominent themes of existing world politics and the Soviet socialist cause. The simple plot revolves mainly around the exploits of a fictitious American circus performer, Marion Dixon, and her engagements in love and peril as she tries to seek sanctuary in the Soviet Union in an attempt to escape the bigoted derision she faces in America at the cause of her being the mother to a black child. The film opens with her running away with the diabolical Franz von Kneishitz, a German theater agent with a visage and ideology blatantly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s, and his assistant, a farcical cane-wielding Charlie Chaplin-esque performer.

Throughout the film, we can clearly see Marion’s avid willingness to transform into a joyful member of the Soviet Union with the utilization of the cannon performance as a metaphor. She begins the performance by singing about how she would desperately like “to get to the sky, but the stars are just too high.” ((Circus, Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, 1936.)) Once she is fired from the canon, she lands on the moon contraption and sings of “knowing no fear, knowing no plight”, essentially paralleling the envisioned view of the socialist utopia, in which every individual would receive equal happiness. Marion continuously dreams of a better life in an unprejudiced Russia, but is constantly thwarted by Kneishitz. He himself is threatened by the Russian circus performers who wish to build an even better cannon, reflecting the intrinsic Soviet desire to modernize, industrialize, and become a dominant world power.

Marion also proceeds to fall in love with a fellow performer, Martynov, who retains the image of the flawless, handsome, and swashbuckling Soviet man. The two play the piano and sing a song glorifying the country: “Our border stretching far and wide / Walk our man, a master of his country / In his heart, and overwhelming pride / Each day is better than the previous one”. ((Ibid.)) Martynov is the antithesis to Kneishitz, who struggles to control Marion while the former strives to free her, as the two face off in a cannon-building competition. This conflict may also be seen as a Soviet disapproval of Hitler’s ideals of Nazi racism and the perfect “Aryan” race. Towards the end of the film, Kneishitz proclaims Marion as a criminal when he reveals her black son to the crowd, whom he expects to denounce her. On the contrary, they gleefully accept her and the child, passing him around while singing a collective lullaby between the hands of many different ethnicities, as a reflection of the socialist national policy of korenizatsiya. In a dazzling scene of synchronized choreography, Marion is surrounded by light, and looks up to Martynov, who stands with blazing torches in his hands upon an immaculate stairway, a scene resembling religious Christ-like imagery of ascension to heaven and paradise. The film concludes with a prideful, militaristic march of the circus performers in uniform that eventually evolves into a procession donning flags of Lenin, Marx, and Stalin, emphasizing the central political message of promoting revolutionary socialist and egalitarian ideals.

Contradiction Within Soviet Identity: The Soviet Union’s Struggle With Nationality

Posted on by

Because the Soviet government focused on indigenization (Korenizatsiya) in the 1920’s yet rejected the attempts at independence of socialist republics such as Ukraine, it was unable to create a concrete “Soviet identity” that separated “high culture” from “national identity.” ((Terry Martin, “Modernism or Neo-traditionalism? Ascribed Nationality and Soviet Primordialism,” in Russian Modernity: Politics, Knowledge, Practices, ed. David L. Hoffmann and Yanni Kotsonis (New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 2000), 167.))

Contradiction regarding the Soviet Union’s handling of nationalities began with the Law of the Finnish Sejm and the First Declaration of the Rada. In the former, Finland declared its independence after the fall of the Tsarist Regime. ((http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/the-empire-falls/the-empire-falls-texts/sejm-law-on-the-supreme-power-in-finland/)) The Bolshevik government accepted this first declaration of independence, but it rejected the Declaration of the Rada. ((http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/the-empire-falls/the-empire-falls-texts/first-universal-declaration/)) In “On the Question of the Nationalities or of Autonomization,” Lenin argues for the retention of “the union of socialist republics as regards the diplomatic apparatus” in order to strengthen the Union. However, Lenin and the Soviet government granted Finland’s independence. However, he also warned against the spread of the “Great-Russian chauvinism” to minority populations because this would have created a division between nationalities. ((http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/transcaucasia/transcaucasia-texts/lenin-on-nationality-policy/)) This division would have undermined the unity of the Russian people as proletariats. On one hand, Lenin called for the retention of socialist republics and denounced Great-Russian chauvinism, yet on the other the Bolshevik government rejected the Declaration of the Rada and accepted Finland’s independence. These contradictions marked the Soviet government’s early struggle deciding whether to create a “Soviet identity” through class identification, national identification, or both.

The Bolsheviks recognition the importance of the support of the many nationalities present in Russia and Korenizatsiya in the 1920’s further exemplifies this contradiction. In order to control the Tsarist military forces, the Bolshevik members of the Petrograd Soviet went to speak with the “Caucasian” members of the military in their native tongue. Previously, ethnic Russian officers and generals controlled the majority of the military force and gave orders in Russian. The Soviets’ decision to communicate with each nationality in its native tongue demonstrated the conscious demarcation of these nationalities. Further, Korenizatsiya, or indigenization, was the government’s support regarding the preservation of minority cultures through education and local practice. Members of these minority communities were encouraged to spread and utilize their native tongue and culture. However, in places like Ukraine, calls for independence were rejected. Under Stalin, this expectation of a separation between “high culture” and “national identity” continued through the implementation of practices such as passportization.

The Soviet government expected its people to accept this flawless distinction between Soviet “high culture” and “national identity” in their identities as the USSR began to industrialize. It expected a peaceful coexistence between the “modern and traditional elements,” also called neo-traditionalism. ((Terry Martin, “Modernism or Neo-traditionalism? Ascribed Nationality and Soviet Primordialism,” in Russian Modernity: Politics, Knowledge, Practices, ed. David L. Hoffmann and Yanni Kotsonis (New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 2000), 163.)) However, by the time Stalin introduced his first Five-Year Plan, the Soviet government had encouraged the distinction between nationalities for too long. As it attempted to create this “Soviet high culture,” it continued to contradict itself and confuse the definition of the identity of its people.

A Nation Divided

Posted on by

The early nineteen twenties were a challenging time for the leaders of the new Soviet Union. Not only were they trying to learn how to lead a country while already being in control, they were also trying to find balance between all their internal contradicting ideas. The six main leaders were Lenin, Stalin, Bukharian, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev. Because of their different backgrounds and skill sets their ideas regarding the future of Soviet Union were very diverse. The two most powerful were Lenin and Stalin. One of Lenin’s last main writings detailed his feelings regarding his fellow associates strengths and weaknesses, specifically Stalin. Lenin feared Stalin would cause issues for the Soviet Union because he would abuse power.

Stalin and Lenin had contrasting ideas of how to create their new nation. This was especially true in their ideas regarding national policy.

In Stalin’s Concerning the Presentation of the National Question Stalin looks at the smaller nations that made up the Soviet Union and explored the idea of the National Question. Stalin believed that a nation was a group of people who had similar idea, a common language and way of life. Thus he believed that the smaller nations that made up the Soviet Union should have these things in common and more specifically that they should be like the big Russia.

In contrast Lenin’s On the Question of the Nationalities or of Autonomization in December of 1922. Lenin believed that big nations historically oppressed small nations and thus as a large nation Russia should create equal footing with its smaller counterparts by giving them more power. He thought they should let them control themselves to a certain extent. He thought Stalin was incorrect and that he should be publically punished.

Modernization or Bust, Right?

Posted on by

The goal for the Soviet Union was to modernize and move to from a pre-indurstial state through modernization to socialism. Was this goal achieved, did the Soviet Union modernize? Martin argues even though the Soviet Union was reaching for beyond modernization, that due to extreme Soviet statism it arrived at a different location; neo-traditionalism.

Ernest Gellner’s theory of nationality states that in reality nations are the inevitable by product of the social organization of industrial society. The industrialization of any society leads to the massive uprooting and movement of peasants to an industrial environment, where the previously commonly shared village culture no longer exists. In order for the new industrial society to function, the creation of a new common culture is required. To ensure the emergence of a new written and codified common culture the state creates a universal education system. Thus creating a combined culture and national identity. These events must occur to lead to the development of a nation-state. However, there are two ways to interpret these nationalizing steps: the sociological view of nations as modern constructs or the popular view of nations as primordial.

The sociological interpretation of nationality is that the development of the modern national culture and identity is born out of the destruction of the old primordial folk culture. The primordial interpretation of nationality is that the changes are perceived as an awakening of the essence of ancient village-based folk culture. The Soviet Union’s nationality policies reflected the sociological interpretation of nationality and sought to separate national identity from high culture. Socialism would be the basis of high culture and be the unifying identity of the whole state. National identity would be used as a way to avoid a defensive nationalist movement and to do that all forms of national identity would be promoted. But, in the state’s attempt to avoid a defensive nationalist movement against itself, it actively intervened to manage identity categorization. The state’s centralized power and control over social and economic affairs enabled it to systematically ethnically label everyone. This constant practice of labeling and separating individuals based on national identity inadvertently turned nationality into a primordial hereditary status. Soviet industrialization successfully destroyed pre-industrial folk culture but the nationality policies failed to lead to a common Soviet national identity. The consequence of the Soviet Union’s failure to follow Gellner’s model and couple high culture with national identity led to the belief in primordial nationality. This result was the opposite of what the Soviet Union wanted.

The Soviet Union’s extreme statism allowed for the implementation of their nationality policies to inadvertently get morphed into a primordial view of nationality. The Soviet Union did not follow the path of Gellner’s theory towards modernization because the presence of extreme statism inhibited it. Instead it fell into a alternative form of modernization, one that was a mix of tradition and modern. The neo-traditional society of the Soviet Union had market driven modernization along with a variety of practices that resemble traditional pre-modern societies.

 

Who really likes living in a communal apartment anyways???

Posted on by

The idea of the USSR as a “communal apartment” presents the idea of socialism and the Soviet state in an analogy that is easy to grasp and remember ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 414))). The “communal apartment” ties in with the author’s thesis of the creation within the Soviet Union and the “Bolsheviks efforts on behalf of ethnic particularism.” Consistent efforts is seen in promoting group rights even at the cost of not harmonizing with rights of the proletariat, in contrast showing hostility to the rights of the individual ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 415))). Part of the whole socio-political experiment is summed up in the following quote, “ ‘The world’s first state of workers and peasants’ was the world’s first state to institutionalize ethnoterritorial federalism, classify all citizens according to their biological nationalities and formally prescribe preferential treatment of certain ethically defined populations” ((David A. Hollinger, How Wide the Circle of the ‘We’? American Intellectuals and the Problem of Ethos since World War Two) American Historical Review 98 no. 2, (1993), pp. 317-337))). These nationalities would make up the separate rooms of the Soviet Federation.

This idea at first may seem contrary to socialism. Even early socialist closely tied to Lenin disagreed with this approach. Yet here Stalin and Lenin both agreed on this idea. To be clear we need to differentiate between “national culture” and “national traits, interest and responsibilities”. The USSR’s makeup consists of various groups such as Ukrainians, Russians, and Georgians whom each possessed individual peculiarities that made them such, national traits. Thus, these groups viewed as separate nations, possessed rights ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))). Acknowledging that each group had its own unique rights played a key part in unity of the federation. Stalin stated, “Nations are sovereign and all nations are equal” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))). Equality in no way means that all nations are equal in size, power, economy or in their development whether “civilized” or “backward”. “But all nations—indeed all nationalities no matter how “backward”—were equal because they were equally sovereign, that is, because they all had the same rights” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))).

This entire idea seems to be counter-intuitive. It railed against what many socialist viewed as an “‘philistine ideal.’ Lenin’s socialists had to “preach against [slogans of national culture] in all languages, ‘adapting’ themselves to all local and national requirements”” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), pp. 417-18))). Therein lies the crux of the issue why allow for nations within the federation.  It was a necessary evil to get individuals to adopt socialism, someone who was of the same language and background to support and perpetuate socialism. Now the locals view socialism as a nationally owned idea and not as an imposed idea of a different nation.  Lenin also came to realize that to gain the trust of these once former oppressed nations under tsarist control, recognition as a nation built confidence and trusts in the idea of the USSR and promoted the idea of acceptance to state socialism. This doctrine actually was successful through the 1930s. Nearly 200 separate national identities emerged with schools, periodicals and communities establish to support this grandiose effort. This required a massive bureaucracy to manage this system, requiring change of policy again.

Finally, “by the end of the decade most ethnically defined soviets, villages, districts and other small units had been disbanded, some autonomous republics forgotten and most “national minority” schools and institutions closed down…however…the ethnic groups that already had their own republics and their own extensive bureaucracies were actually told to redouble their efforts at building distinct national cultures.” The idea behind this was “in order to concentrate on a few full-fledged, fully equipped “nations” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 445))). The purpose behind this idea was to promote culture to the various republics through the arts, which lasted until the demise of the USSR in an attempt to bring a cohesiveness to the state. Emphasis now is on a national language in addition to the language of each individual’s nationality to reaffirm this solidarity of state. Did this experiment work? The answer is summed up in the final word of the article where it states, “Seventy years after the X Party Congress the policy of indigenization reached its logical conclusion: the tenants of various rooms barricaded their doors and started using the windows, while the befuddled residents of the enormous hall and kitchen stood in the center scratching the backs of their heads [referring to the Russians]. Should they try to recover their belongings? Should they knock down the walls? Should they cut off the gas? Should they covert their “living area” into a proper apartment?” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), pp. 451-2))). So goes the social experiment, the Soviets seemed always to take the most convoluted way to get to a goal, ultimately the tenants final decision to flee the communal apartment passes judgment on this grand experiment.

The USSR as a Communal Apartment

Posted on by

Author Yuri Slezkine poses an interesting view of the USSR in the late 1920’s and early 30’s in his chapter “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism” in the book Stalinism: New Directions. The chapter details the “Great Transformation” of 1928-1932, during which ethnic diversity was highlighted and celebrated; it then explains the “Great Retreat” during the 1930’s, when nationalism as a whole was discouraged except those select nationalities that reinforced socialist ideas and contributed to the overall success of the USSR.

The promotion of ethnic distinctions seemed strange to me at first, considering the Communist goal of eliminating classes and the inequalities that came with them. I assumed that defining and strengthening different ethnic identities would only lead to more inequality and struggle. It seems that at first, ethnic particularism was a way to accept the inevitable differences that arise between people but in a manner that avoids classes. Towards the end of the chapter, however, the author alludes to the fact that certain nationalities were seen as more worthy, therefore superior to others. It may not be along class lines, but the people of the Soviet Union were still divided. This promotion of nationalism most likely created more problems for the Soviet government in the long-term as nationalism grew stronger and threatened the Soviet’s unity and control. These struggles would also plague the Russian government after the fall of the Berlin Wall.