The Dilemma of Post-Soviet Nostalgia: Longing for Imperial Past or Soviet Era?
Nostalgia is one of the most notable characteristics of Post-Soviet culture. Both longing for Soviet and Russian imperial past are observable in Post-Soviet societies. In this paper I will analyze the particular case of Post-Soviet nostalgia in Russian society; in three parts: (i) theoretical background of nostalgia; (ii) longing for Russian imperial past and (iii) longing for Soviet era. Firstly; Nadkarni & Shevchenko’s distinction of good and bad nostalgia will be investigated, as well as their four-partite division. Oushakine’s “Post-Soviet Aphasia” concept will be utilized to understand longing for communist and imperial epochs. Hashamova’s evaluation of psychological terms “hateful object” and “the depressive position” to Post-Soviet case will be used in order to comprehend the reception of nostalgic movies in Post-Socialist era which is witnessing globalization. Secondly; nostalgia for the imperial past will be discussed by the comparative analysis of Alexander Sokurov’s Russian Ark and Nikita Mikhalkov’s Barber of Siberia. (i) The accent on the national identity; (ii) the problematic relation between West and Russia; (iii) mystification of the history are the bases of the comparison. After that; their stance vis-à-vis Nadkarni’s good and bad nostalgia will be questioned. Thirdly; longing for Soviet era will be discussed making reference to the movie Irony of Fate or Enjoy your Bath and its reception. Its usage as ‘a symbol from the previous system’ will be questioned in terms of Oushakine’s Post-Soviet Aphasia term. Then, its marketing, consumption and display as a cultural product of Soviet era will be considered in light of Nadkarni’s “Proustiana” notion. Finally; political irony; as a form of reflexive nostalgia; will be examined in the movies Little Vera, Taxi Blues, Asthenic Syndrome and Repentance.
Theoretical Background
.First of all, Nadkarni and Shevchenko make a clear distinction between “good” and “bad” nostalgia. They use “good” and “reflexive” as interchangeably; and this kind of nostalgia’s characteristics are being “ironic”, “subversive” and “critical”. Whereas “bad” or “restorative” nostalgia is defines as “aggressive”, “political” and “reactionary.”(Nadkarni, p.504) Even though Nadkarni and Shevchenko make this strict binary separation of good and bad nostalgia in theory; many examples fell in between these two types in practice. The four-partite division of nostalgia categories is important to understand the movies about soviet or imperial era: (i) Political kitsch, (ii) Proustiana, (iii) Late socialist Habitus and (iv) Fashionability of socialist historicity among new generations. Political kitsch is based on mockery with communist era state symbol, leaders, propaganda apparatus, etc. thus it critical of the previous politics. Nadkarni explains it as “the commodification of the official symbols of communist ideology such as Lenin and Soviet models.”(Nadkarni, p.499) Proustiana comes from the famous French writer Marcel Proust and his masterpiece À la recherche du temps perdu. As the book’s title suggest; it is the marketing, consumption and display of soviet era material culture; it is based on ironical affection. Late socialist habitus is the interiorized knowledge and practices of everyday life. In other words, it is one’s belonging to actual and metaphorical area of socialist period sociality. The final category is only experienced by new generations; who have born or grown up after Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost policies. Therefore, It is a nostalgia without melancholy; it is based on ironic distance rather than longing.
The second theoretical tool to examine nostalgic Post-Soviet films is Oushakine’s Post-Soviet Aphasia concept. Sergei Oushakine made interviews with young people whose coming of age is after than 89-91 period in Siberia; in order to understand how these people identify themselves: Soviet, New Russian or Post-Soviet. Majority of the interviewees neither accepted terms “soviet” or “new Russian”; but they chose ‘post-soviet’ and as Oushakine defends that post-soviet generation feels to be caught in between. There is an apparent lack of feeling belong to any social group and lack of trust in social system. This causes apathy and disinterest to the current situation. Oushakine borrows the term aphasia from Jakobson who define it as “the processes of regression and disintegration of individual speech.”(Oushakine, p.994) Oushakine expands this “individual” definition to a “collective” one where Post-Socialist aphasia means “Regresssion to symbolic forms of the previous historical period that has been caused by the society’s disintegrated ability to find proper verbal signifiers for the signifiers of the new sociopolitical regime.”(Oushakine, p.994) To put it differently, new generation has no new “signifier” to give meaning to the current situation; they don’t have any original, new symbol to understand their time and their place in it. Therefore; due to lack of new symbols and signifiers; post-soviet generation embraced symbols of the previous system and utilized them in different ways to understand their time. In other words the form does not change but the context does. Oushakine draws a parallelism to Nadkarni’s Proustiana term as he highlights the demands of the current market in the past symbols as: “The soviet past thus becomes an object of purposeful commodification and a product of active Post-Soviet cultural consumption.”(Oushakine, p.999) He also compares the wordless national anthem of Russia; to silence and speechlessness of youth; he finds these two examples very similar as there is a common asymbolia. Everyone hesitates to declare a normative goal or ideal.
The last theoretical instrument to analyze movies which deal with nostalgia is Yana Hashamova’s evaluation of Melanie Klein’s concept of “hateful object” and “the depressive position” to explain post-soviet psychology. “Hateful object” is the bad, sinful, immoral object that you should not possess; and “depressive position” is the situation triggered by the possession of the hateful object. In Soviet case, “the hateful object” is capitalist values, over-consumption and luxury; and the post-soviet individual started to accept and interiorize these capitalist values after 1989-91 period and with globalization. Therefore, “the depressive position” is provoked because of embracing the hateful object; and Klein states that this depressive position causes trauma. By applying Kelin’s concepts to post-soviet individual, Hashamova claims that post-soviet society has trauma due to embracing previously degraded capitalist values; thus to overcome this trauma post-soviet society “re-embraced traditional Russian values.”(Hashamova, p.57)
With these tools we will analyze primarily Alexander Sokurov’s Russian Ark and Nikita Mikhalkov’s Barber of Siberia in the first section; and Irony of Fate or Enjoy your Bath in the second. A quotation by Rita D. in Nadkarni & Sevchenko’s article summarizes the gist of our analysis: “Now it seems that the whole of the former Soviet Union went into immigration, without leaving the country.”(Nadkarni, p.491) The symbolic, spatial displacement is substituted with temporal displacement in our investigation of movies. But essence of the question is: where is the supposed destination of this immigration? Soviet era or Imperial epoch?
Longing for Imperial Past
The strongest basis of nostalgia for the imperial past resides in the endeavor for creating a Russian identity. After the dissolution of multi-ethnic Soviet Union; the pace of construction of the Russian nation increased. We will analyze Barber of Siberia and Russian Ark in the question of national identity, relation to west and historical mystification. Firstly, Barber of Siberia and Russian Ark articulate Russian national identity, as source of high culture, moral values and belonging to motherland. In other words, the accent is put on the national identity of the characters; and ‘good’ and ‘praised’ values are shown as if they are related to the ‘national character’. For instance; Barber of Siberia’s tagline: “He’s Russian – that explains a lot” is an example of how national identity is an instrument used in marketing of the movie. “Being Russian” is sufficient to attire the attention of people; and the advertiser expects that the audience will know the ‘inner meaning’ and ‘positive values’ inside the term being Russian. Hashamova explains the ‘inside’ of Russianness as “loyalty, honor and high moral standards” (Hashamova, p.263) Susan Larsen; in her analysis of Barber of Siberia; notes that the aim of Mikhalkov is “creating new hero of our time from national past” (Larsen, p.492) The hero is from the past; but his values and his ideals will constitute an idol for the audience. Moreover; Larsen does not limit ‘the nationalist motive’ only for Barber of Siberia; but she defends that “the pathos of these movies derives from a common anxiety about what it means to be Russian at the end of twentieth century.” (Larsen, p.493) The anxiety of being a Russian is clear in Oushakine’s Aphasia concept: people do not know how to define their identity; and due to the absence of a new form; they search it in the “heroes of past” inside Barber of Siberia or Russian Ark.
Another important characteristic is the military nature of these past heroes. In Mikhalkov’s movies; Barber of Siberia or Burnt by the Sun; the main characters whom the audience is expected to identify with, are soldiers. Whether it is imperial or Soviet past; the ‘right’, ‘ideal’ character is chosen as a soldier in order to promote masculine, paternal bonds; which is in line with nationalism. Bakhtin suggests that “creating a past necessary for nation formation, and it will be linked to future.” (Hashamova, p.255) It is clear that in both Mikhalkov and Sokurov’s films nation is formed either in a romantic affair in a military atmosphere or in a hermitage where European art and generations of Russia reside harmoniously. Hashmova defines Sokurov’s nationalism as the honor for Russia’s strength and perseverance; she states that Sokurov situates “national pride in Russia’s ability to ‘live forever and sail forever’, with Russia’s world-class culture and rich history.” (Hashamova, p.263)
Secondly, Russian culture is opposed to Western culture in a stereotypic way in both Barber of Siberia and Russian Ark. Mikhalkov clearly distinguishes Russian and Western characters and their values; whereas Sokurov attempts to create a more harmonious reconciliation between these cultures. In Barber of Siberia; West is identified with the adjectives “shallow, ignorant, corrupt”; wile Russia with “passionate, unique and rich in value”. Hashamova states that the movie is based on the conflict between “destructive west and the morally superior Russia” (Hashamova, p.264) Mikhalkov reproduces the orientalist cliché of materialist west versus spiritual Russia. Larsen claims that; this conflict between spirituality and materialism is actually an allegory of Post-soviet rivalry between ‘Russian national values’ and corruption of biznes: “Andrei exemplifies Mikhalkov’s vision of Russian moral and cultural tradition" aims to rival and surpass the commercially ingenious but spiritually bankrupt, traditions of the United States and its obsession with biznes.” (Larsen, p.511) Nevertheless; we should note that the relation is not limited to a conflict between two poles; but an “endless love-hate romance between Russia and the West” personified under the characters of Andrei and Jane; takes place in Barber of Siberia. West is symbolized by a woman whom Andrei -‘true, honest, morally virtuous’ Russian man – endeavors to attract. Sokurov has a different solution to West-Russia relation comparing to Mihalkov: Hashamova thinks that he locates a “code of honor” which connects ‘loyalty to rural Russian tradition’ to ‘love of European culture’. His appreciation of the Europen culture and art is visible in Russian Ark; in the portrayal of European masterpieces in the Hermitage. He depicts Katerina’s rule as a great epoch since it is open to European Influence. Considering his love of European art; he criticizes every possible ‘stereotype’ which can harm the good relation between Russian traditional values and European culture. Therefore, Marquis de Custine is the scapegoat, or the stereotype of “European megalomania”, the orientalist approach who views Russia as barbaric. (Hashamova, p.261) Characters such as Marquis de Custine are obstacles to reconciliation of Russia and West. Georgi Derluguian suggests that there is always s sense of lagging behind in Russian thought since Peter the Great. Reforms and innovations are done in order to be as good as Europe that has already progressed. This concept is observable in the hermitage in Russian Ark; and the aggressive approach towards West and the rivalry in Barber of Siberia.
Thirdly, Barber of Siberia and Russian Ark mystify history in order to idealize Russian legacy. They change historical facts in order to construct an idealized past where the roots of Russian nation’s moral values are located. To understand the modification of the past in Mikhalkov’s movies; we should cite his words in Russia on the Reels:
Cinema was nominated as the most important of all the arts because it was capable of shaping the consciousness of the masses. It was an art, because it was clear even then that it was not only a document, but an artistic illusion, a myth, if you like, capable of facilitating the creation of a model for a new society, and for a hero which the state and the authorities needed at a particular time.
Mikhalkov’s motivation is to ‘create’ a past; not to reflect it as it is. Therefore, his characters are his ideology under the cloak of moving pictures, decors and actors. Hashamova states that “both films offer a ‘nostalgic’ idealization of tsarist Russia.” Larsen thinks that Mikhalkov articulates the values and innocence of imperial society; which is also visible in his “idealized vision of the prerevolutionary officers’ honor and dignity.” (Larsen, p.502) Hashamova more harshly criticizes Mikhalkov’s personal aims in Barber of Siberia; as she says he idealizes Alexander III because of his “his narcissistic inclination and political aspiration”(Hashamova, p.253) For this ideal he makes historical fabrications, he neglects historical precision. Comparing to Mikhalkov, Sokurov’s position is more ambivalent, as he both mystify the past but he also unravel hidden parts of Russian history. The reality inside the hermitage is not reliable as the time is not linear and various characters from different centuries are omnipresent. This play with the time create a self-reflexive tone which also question some clandestine parts of Russian history.
In light of Nadkarni and Shevchenko’s concept of “reflexive” and “restorative” nostalgias, we can say that Barber of Siberia is quite “restorative” which is apparent in Mikhalkov’s discourse about cinema’s role in order to affect masses (p.255, Hashamova). He has a political aim in the glorification of the past and formation of distinct Russia national identity. He tries to ‘restore’ the old values, morality, practices, etc. in order to fill the empty space in the field of symbols, signifiers of Post-Soviet society. Thus, we can say that Mikhalkov reproduces Oushakine’s Aphasia term; by searching the meaning in old symbols, old forms. He verifies three adjectives of Nadkarni: aggressive, political and reactionary. The conflict constructed between West and Russia; materialism versus spirituality is aggressive. His political concern is evident from his speech on Russia on Reels; and from the movies Barber of Siberia and Burnt by the Sun. The re-embracement of old values is a reaction to the political turmoil and cultural anxiety in the post-soviet society after 89-98 period of perestroika and glasnost. Russian Ark is more ambivalent, he has restorative and reflexive elements. The cyclical time of the movie structure suggests that the movie is self-reflexive and it is parallel with Nadkarni’s term “longing for longing”. We can suggest that the omnipresence of many generations; and questioning hidden parts of history is critical ans reflexive. However, the accent on nationality, idealization of the past, and embracement of ‘good, old, correct’ Catherina epoch suggest “restorative” tones.
Longing for Soviet Era
Nostalgia for communist era will be analyzed in light of Nadkarni & Shevchenko’s four-partite division as well as Oushakine’s aphasia concept vis-à-vis the movie Irony of Fate or Enjoy your Bath. Firstly, Irony of Fate or Enjoy your Bath constitutes an example of ‘usage of previous forms for current situation’ in the concept of Aphasia. In other words; high popularity of Enjoy your Bath still in Post-Soviet era suggests that the movie provides to the audience what the new productions cannot. Post-soviet people stop going to cinema for several reasons such as emergence of TV, VHS cassettes, piracy, expensive cinema tickets, etc. but another reason is also the lack of creating ‘new cultural forms’ in cinema.
Enjoy your Bath is shown every new year’s eve in Russia; even though there are a number of new year’s eve themed Post-Soviet movies. Television channels prefer to use this ‘old symbol’ instead of finding new ones. However, we can say that as Oushakine suggested, the form is same but the context changes. So, Enjoy your Bath is literally show in the same format; but its reception changes. In Soviet Era, people can make fun of ‘the uniformity’ and standard characteristic of every building, street and city. The unoriginality of the ‘imported Polish furniture’ was a big self-criticism. However, the reception of the movie evolved in post-soviet era: now people evaluate it as ‘even if everything was standard, monotone’, this does not generate boredom. Contrarily, even in the most standard, colorless conditions; originality of people create the diversity and color. People still enjoy ‘the old symbol, form” but understand it differently, or load a new meaning This difference in the reception depicts how a ‘symbol of previous system gains a new context’. It is important to note that; young generation who has born after 1989 also appreciates Enjoy Your Bath. This can be classified under the fourth category of Nadkarni’s types of nostalgia: an ironical affection without melancholy. This generation who has not witnessed Soviet era can also finds something meaningful and satisfactory in this ‘symbol from previous system’. This can be read also in the current system something is meaningless and unsatisfactory. This can be the relationships between human; the importance of self-interest in a homo economicus fashion, corruption due to materialism, etc. But, it is important that this ‘meaninglessness’ can also stem from the lack of signifiers to comprehend current system; and regression to the old movie/symbol is another manifestation of aphasia among youth.
Secondly, Enjoy your Bath is the perfect case of marketing, consumption and display of soviet-era material culture. Enjoy your Bath is literally a material and cultural product of Soviet-era. ‘Proustiana’ concept suggests that the ‘longing for a lost time’ is utilized in market dynamics. People’s search for a safe, morally virtues, warm past is taken as a ‘demand’ in culture market; and this demand is supplied with the nostalgic visions of Enjoy your Bath. People’s naïve, innocent characters; the purity and warmth of their relationship are contrasted to the monotone, uniform material properties such as buildings, furniture, etc. In this “lost heaven”, friendships are more genuine, humans are more trust-worthy; people do not praise material possession. In other words, the conflict between materialism and spirituality is reproduced. As Hashamova states, globalization causes the “depressive position” and trauma in Post-soviet society due to interiorizing materialist values. The popularity of Enjoy your Bath as an object of ‘Proustiana’ resides in the powerful declaration of material possession’s triviality: buildings, furniture, clothes, decoration, etc. is unnecessary for happiness. What we need is ‘spirituality’; good human relations; without seeking utility and selfish interest. Although Enjoy your Bath voices this hierarchy of spirituality over materialism; it ironically became a highly demanded a material product from the past.
Finally “political kitsch” or the mockery with communist era state ideologies and leaders is a category of “reflexive” or “good” nostalgia, according to Nadkarni. We will observe ironical commoditization of communist era official symbols and ideology which is evident in very different styles and approaches in many post-socialist movies such as Little Vera, Taxi Blues and Asthenic Syndrome. The first case is of political mockery is Vera’s sarcastic comment to Sergei’s question: “Do you have a goal in life?” She responds “We have a common goal, Sergei, communism.” Her answer is full of irony about state ideology and shows youth’s reaction to dominant ideology. Communist propaganda in the Soviet Union is evolved into an object of mockery ad irony among youth. Vera’s sarcasm also shows how new generation can utilize the same form of a propagandistic phrase with a completely different meaning. This is in line with Oushakine’s post-soviet aphasia concept; as the old form gains a new concept. Vera’s example is also explainable with Alexei Yurchak’s term “Soviet Hegemony of Form”. Yurchak argues that there was a heteronymous shift in late Soviet regime, which means that the form does not change but the meaning or content changes; which is the case of both Vera, and new generation’s aphasia.
The second example of political kitsch is the case of “The foreign jazz musician” and the officier who is charged to accompany him all the time in Taxi Blues. There was a law in Soviet Union which requires that a state officer should escort a foreign visitor all the time he/she is inside Soviet territory. The purpose of this law is to protect communism from spies of Western Bloc. But after Gorbachev’s perestroika; this practice lost its meaning. Again; the form remained same; but as the context changed; its meaning is changed or disappeared. Taxi Blues depicts the meaninglessness of this practice with comedy. Third example of political kitsch is in Aesthenic Syndrome; in two levels: First, the criticism of failure of Soviet Union to create a classless society; second, questioning of Soviet communism’s effect on people. The self-indulgent teacher character shows that classless society is not successfully formed. There are still people who benefit more from the system; and they possess a lot more than the rest of the society. The teacher character has a house full of commodities and luxury. In addition, Soviet communism’s negative effects on people is challenged in Aesthenic syndrome. For instance, when the movie is finished, only Nikolai and soldiers remained in the salon. Nikolai was asleep; and soldiers are obliged to stay because they are not ordered to leave. This hierarchy and the notion of “duty” is interiorized in many levels of society. This causes complete obedience to orders; and indifference towards the areas which is not your duty, responsibility or job determined by state. For example, when Nikolai fainted in subway route, nobody but the officer and the nurse helped him. This shows that nobody has a voluntary humane reaction; but only the people who are obliged to do it act. Another criticized fact is the long queues in order to get food. It is evident that the quality is fish is not good, and people must wait to get it.
The final example of political kitsch is the black-comedy of Tengiz Abuladze ‘s Repentance to deal with the tragedy of past, due the State ideology and terror. Allegory and surrealism is the method by which Abuladze criticizes the lack of repentance in Russian society. For instance, Varlam is a mixture of many dictators of the past identified with “evil”: Mussolini’s black shirt, Hitler’s mustache, Stalin’s haircut, boots, Beria’s pince-nez, and spectacles. Also the goddess of justice, playing a piano, taken by black clothed men is a strong criticism to Stalin epoch. As the allegory implies Varlam’s period is Stalin’s, and the period of the cake-maker woman is Brezhnev’s era; it is clear that in Brezhnev’s time conformity prevails the society. No one cares about the church; except the old woman who appears at the end of the film; which connotes the apathy and disinterest to terrible historical events; which destroys any possibility of responsibility, and repentance. These examples of political mockery in Little Vera, Taxi Blues, Asthenic Syndrome and Repentance are in line with Nadkarni & Shevchenko’s “reflexive nostalgia” concept. Rather than a longing for Soviet era, they invite the audience to face with Soviet Era’s ideology, failures terror, traumas and tragedies. They challenge and question the Soviet past; with ironical distance, sarcasm, mockery, allegory or black comedy.
Conclusions
We have seen that there are not only two but actually three trends in movies who deal with Post-Soviet nostalgia. The first one is the longing for imperial past; and it has mainly based on the construction of a Russian national identity. For this purpose; in Barber of Siberia and Russian Ark the problematic West-Russia relation is portrayed in these movies. And the historical knowledge is more or less twisted in the hands of directors to accomplish greater ideals such as ‘create a national hero from past’ or ‘to reconcile European art’ and Russian traditional values. The second one is longing for Soviet era; and one of the most eminent examples of it is The Irony of Fate or Enjoy Your Bath and its reception. It can be evaluated as the usage of an older form to give meaning to Post-Soviet cultural space. Or it can also be interpreted as a material and cultural product which satisfies the demand of current Post-Soviet market, which is in search of a ‘lost heaven’. The third, previously un-nuanced nostalgia is the reflexive nostalgia which questions and criticizes Soviet era policies, ideologies and tragedies. This nostalgia does not include any ‘longing’; but it includes a brave step for accepting ‘the not so appealing’ events of the past. It invites people to face , to repent and to be responsible of them.
References
Susan Larsen. National Identity, Cultural Authority, and the Post-Soviet Blockbusters: Nikita Mikhalkov and Aleksei Balabanov. Slavic Review, Vol.62, No. 3 (2003), 491-511.
Yana Hashamova, “Two Visions of a Usable Past in (Op)position to the West: Mikhalkov's 'The Barber of Siberia' and Sokurov's 'Russian Ark',” The Russian Review, Volume 65, Number 2, April 2006 , pp. 250-257.
Serguei Oushakine. 2000. “In the State of Post-Soviet Aphasia: Symbolic Development in Contemporary Russia,” Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 6 (Sep., 2000), pp. 991- 1016
Maya Nadkarni and Olga Shevchenko. The Politics of Nostalgia: A Case for Comparative Analysis of Post-socialist Practices, 1-2, Ab İmperio, Issue 2/2004.
Yana Hashamova, “Post-Soviet Russian Film and the Trauma of Globalization,” Consumption, Markets and Culture, Volume 7, Number 1 /March 2004, pp.53-68.
Aleksei Yurchak. Soviet Hegemony of Form: Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More. 2003. Society for Comparative Study of Society and History.
Georgi Derluguian, "Recasting Russia," New Left Review, 12, November-December 2001.
Birgit Beumers, ed. 1999/2000. Russia on Reels: The Russian Idea in Post-Soviet Cinema. London: I.B. Tauris. Pp. 43-104: "To Moscow! To Moscow? The Russian Hero and the Loss of the Centre" 76-87, and the short speech addresses by Sergei Selianov, Daniil Dondurei, Nikita Mikhalkov, Tatiana Moskvina, David Gillespie, and Natasha Zhuravkina.
List of Post-Socialist Russian Movies; number one and number two.
Kayıtlar
