“TO BE OR NOT TO BE?”: DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SOUL IN SOVIET LITERATURE AND CRITICISM OF THE 1920–1930S

Y. Mashkova
{"title":"“TO BE OR NOT TO BE?”: DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SOUL IN SOVIET LITERATURE AND CRITICISM OF THE 1920–1930S","authors":"Y. Mashkova","doi":"10.37279/2413-1679-2020-6-1-76-94","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the problem of transformation of the key Russian concept “Soul” in the socialist realism literature and critique of post-revolutionary decades. It is found that for the supporters of new political system this concept is mainly related to religious ideas about divine in human being. Symptomatic for 1920s attempts to discredit this concept, to exclude it from the active vocabulary as ideologically alien anachronism are described. Complex “poputchik’s” (L. Leonov’s, M. Shaginyan’s), “internal emigrant’s” (A. Platonov’s) reflection on Bolshevik spiritual experiment is shown. Soviet River by L. Leonov, Gidrocentral by M. Shaginyan, The Street Organ by A. Platonov do indicate that Soul continues to be one of the main ontological categories for these writers.\n\nIt is stated that by the mid-1930s the word Soul has not disappeared from literary language, although more often than not it has been used only in structure of idioms. The texts by F. Gladkov, I. Le, V. Ketlinskaya, B. Yasensky, G. Dalny, P. Nilin, A. Zorich, A. Carcev prove that traditional views on Soul have just not been eradicated by new ideology but have been distorted and adapted to it.\n\nThe difference between categories “collectivism” and “sobornost” is demonstrated.","PeriodicalId":416885,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Notes of V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Philological sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Notes of V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Philological sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37279/2413-1679-2020-6-1-76-94","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of transformation of the key Russian concept “Soul” in the socialist realism literature and critique of post-revolutionary decades. It is found that for the supporters of new political system this concept is mainly related to religious ideas about divine in human being. Symptomatic for 1920s attempts to discredit this concept, to exclude it from the active vocabulary as ideologically alien anachronism are described. Complex “poputchik’s” (L. Leonov’s, M. Shaginyan’s), “internal emigrant’s” (A. Platonov’s) reflection on Bolshevik spiritual experiment is shown. Soviet River by L. Leonov, Gidrocentral by M. Shaginyan, The Street Organ by A. Platonov do indicate that Soul continues to be one of the main ontological categories for these writers. It is stated that by the mid-1930s the word Soul has not disappeared from literary language, although more often than not it has been used only in structure of idioms. The texts by F. Gladkov, I. Le, V. Ketlinskaya, B. Yasensky, G. Dalny, P. Nilin, A. Zorich, A. Carcev prove that traditional views on Soul have just not been eradicated by new ideology but have been distorted and adapted to it. The difference between categories “collectivism” and “sobornost” is demonstrated.
“生存还是毁灭?”: 20世纪20年代至30年代苏联文学和批评中关于灵魂的讨论
本文主要探讨俄国社会主义现实主义文学与批判中“灵魂”这一核心概念的嬗变问题。研究发现,对于新政治制度的支持者来说,这一概念主要与人类神性的宗教观念有关。20世纪20年代试图诋毁这一概念的症状,将其排除在活跃的词汇中,作为意识形态上的异类时代错误被描述。展现了复杂的“平民”(列昂诺夫、沙金扬)、“国内移民”(柏拉图诺夫)对布尔什维克精神实验的反思。L.列昂诺夫的《苏维埃河》、M.沙金扬的《吉德拉中央》、A.柏拉图诺夫的《街头风琴》确实表明,灵魂仍然是这些作家的主要本体论范畴之一。据说,到20世纪30年代中期,Soul这个词还没有从文学语言中消失,尽管它通常只在成语结构中使用。F. Gladkov, I. Le, V. Ketlinskaya, B. Yasensky, G. Dalny, P. Nilin, A. Zorich, A. Carcev的文本证明,关于灵魂的传统观点并没有被新的意识形态所根除,而是被扭曲和适应了。论证了“集体主义”和“自主主义”两个范畴的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信