A Socialist Pluralism of Opinions: Glasnost and Policy-Making Under Gorbachev

T. Remington
{"title":"A Socialist Pluralism of Opinions: Glasnost and Policy-Making Under Gorbachev","authors":"T. Remington","doi":"10.2307/130365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Alexander Herzen, attempting to explain the sensation occasioned by the publication of Peter Chaadaev's famous \"Philosophical Letter\" in 1836, characterized it as a \"shot that rang out in the dark night.\" The scandal, he records in his memoirs, testified to the power of the word in a country, shaped by Nicholas I's policies of \"official nationality,\" that had grown disaccustomed to open, independent speech. The essay appeared after a decade in which many of Russia's boldest intellectual spirits had been exiled, a time when \"to speak was dangerous-and there was nothing to say anyway.\" Glasnost' has demonstrated the continuing power of the word in Russia. From the leadership's standpoint, glasnost' is a principal fulcrum in a massive effort at social engineering directed as much at reconstructing Soviet political culture as at reforming the structures of power. As its architects have formulated the matter, glasnost' is narrowing the \"gap between words and deeds\"-a formula widely used in the late 1970s and early 1980s by both reformist and orthodox wings of the political elite to deplore the disparity between commonly accepted norms of public and private behavior, and the pieties of party-mindedness and collectivism to which everyone was expected to pay obeisance. Alluding to Orwell's famous concept of double-think, the venerable Soviet scholar Igor' Kon analyzed this gap as a problem of social psychology. Double-think he regards as a condition in which \"a different meaning is imputed to the same words; and the same person, depending on the situation (for example, at a meeting or at home) with equal sincerity affirms diametrically opposing things.\"2 This discrepancy was in fact less between \"words and deeds,\" or, in social-scientific terms, culture and behavior, than between two interdependent but opposed codes of language and behavior: one for the realm of the unsanctioned-private, whether collective (such as dissident activity, religion, small-scale graft and illicit enterprise, and large-scale organized crime), or individualistic (including various forms of private rebellion and","PeriodicalId":427354,"journal":{"name":"The Soviet System in Crisis","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Soviet System in Crisis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/130365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Alexander Herzen, attempting to explain the sensation occasioned by the publication of Peter Chaadaev's famous "Philosophical Letter" in 1836, characterized it as a "shot that rang out in the dark night." The scandal, he records in his memoirs, testified to the power of the word in a country, shaped by Nicholas I's policies of "official nationality," that had grown disaccustomed to open, independent speech. The essay appeared after a decade in which many of Russia's boldest intellectual spirits had been exiled, a time when "to speak was dangerous-and there was nothing to say anyway." Glasnost' has demonstrated the continuing power of the word in Russia. From the leadership's standpoint, glasnost' is a principal fulcrum in a massive effort at social engineering directed as much at reconstructing Soviet political culture as at reforming the structures of power. As its architects have formulated the matter, glasnost' is narrowing the "gap between words and deeds"-a formula widely used in the late 1970s and early 1980s by both reformist and orthodox wings of the political elite to deplore the disparity between commonly accepted norms of public and private behavior, and the pieties of party-mindedness and collectivism to which everyone was expected to pay obeisance. Alluding to Orwell's famous concept of double-think, the venerable Soviet scholar Igor' Kon analyzed this gap as a problem of social psychology. Double-think he regards as a condition in which "a different meaning is imputed to the same words; and the same person, depending on the situation (for example, at a meeting or at home) with equal sincerity affirms diametrically opposing things."2 This discrepancy was in fact less between "words and deeds," or, in social-scientific terms, culture and behavior, than between two interdependent but opposed codes of language and behavior: one for the realm of the unsanctioned-private, whether collective (such as dissident activity, religion, small-scale graft and illicit enterprise, and large-scale organized crime), or individualistic (including various forms of private rebellion and
社会主义的意见多元化:戈尔巴乔夫时期的公开性与政策制定
亚历山大·赫尔岑(Alexander Herzen)试图解释1836年彼得·查达耶夫(Peter Chaadaev)著名的《哲学书信》(Philosophical Letter)出版所引起的轰动,他将其描述为“在黑夜中响起的一声枪响”。他在回忆录中写道,这一丑闻证明了文字在一个受尼古拉斯一世(Nicholas I)“官方国籍”政策影响的国家的力量,这个国家已经不习惯公开、独立的言论。在这篇文章发表之前的十年里,许多俄罗斯最大胆的知识分子精神都被流放了,这是一个“说话是危险的——反正也没什么可说的”的时代。“公开性”已经证明了这个词在俄罗斯的持续影响力。从领导层的角度来看,“公开性”是社会工程的一个主要支点,其目的是重建苏联政治文化和改革权力结构。正如其缔造者所阐述的那样,“公开性”正在缩小“言行之间的差距”——这是一个在20世纪70年代末和80年代初被政治精英中的改革派和正统派广泛使用的公式,用来谴责普遍接受的公共和私人行为规范与每个人都被期望服从的党派思想和集体主义之间的差距。德高望重的苏联学者Igor’Kon参照奥威尔著名的双重思维概念,将这种差距分析为一个社会心理学问题。他认为双重思考是一种情况,即“相同的词语被赋予不同的含义;而同一个人,根据不同的情况(例如,在会议上或在家里),以同样的诚意肯定截然相反的事情。事实上,这种差异与其说是“言语和行为”之间的差异,或者用社会科学的术语来说,文化和行为之间的差异,不如说是两种相互依存但相互对立的语言和行为准则之间的差异:一种是针对未经批准的私人领域的,无论是集体的(如持不同政见者的活动、宗教、小规模的贪污和非法企业,以及大规模的有组织犯罪),还是个人主义的(包括各种形式的私人反叛和行为)
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信