文学与独裁:20世纪初追求理想权力的文化(随笔)

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
I. Glebova
{"title":"文学与独裁:20世纪初追求理想权力的文化(随笔)","authors":"I. Glebova","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2022-104-1-162-182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The end of the 19th — beginning of the 20th century is a watershed moment for Russia. It was the era of “theomachy”, or getting rid of the former gods (authorities, restrictions, coercion and control), in politics, economy, science and culture. In this sense, the motto “Down with the autocracy!” is the political equivalent of the poets’ slogan “Throw Pushkin off the ship of Modernity”. Poets, like politicians, wanted to break out of the past by removing its linchpin — the tsar, the old power. Some intended to reestablish it, others — to rethink it. Politicians sought their ideal in “geography” (the political structure of advanced, democratic Europe), poets — in culture. And they found it in Peter the Great — the revolutionary on the throne, the demiurge of St Petersburg’s Russia. That cult, which was seemingly organic for that culture, concealed the expectations that can be politically deciphered as “the dictatorship of development”. It was Peter’s model of transformation (radical upheaval, a step from the past into the future, with the leader heading the process) that was adopted by the Russian culture as a normative. The revolution and the new (“October”) world, with its eulogy of the future, dictatorship, and cult of the leader, have become the answer to the questions of the beginning of the century and their test. The article views revolution precisely as an experience (which, for all its intensity and tragic nature, has received insufficient reflection) that failed to have any impact on the subsequent political practice. At the same time, although the main goal of the study is political in nature, the author draws on literary, mostly poetic sources, showing how revolutionary practice (not only at the start, but also at the end of the century) highlights the extent to which the “irresponsible chatter” of poets was truly reflective in political and moral respects.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Literature and Dictatorship: Culture of the Beginning of the 20th Century in Search of Ideal Power (Essay)\",\"authors\":\"I. Glebova\",\"doi\":\"10.30570/2078-5089-2022-104-1-162-182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The end of the 19th — beginning of the 20th century is a watershed moment for Russia. It was the era of “theomachy”, or getting rid of the former gods (authorities, restrictions, coercion and control), in politics, economy, science and culture. In this sense, the motto “Down with the autocracy!” is the political equivalent of the poets’ slogan “Throw Pushkin off the ship of Modernity”. Poets, like politicians, wanted to break out of the past by removing its linchpin — the tsar, the old power. Some intended to reestablish it, others — to rethink it. Politicians sought their ideal in “geography” (the political structure of advanced, democratic Europe), poets — in culture. And they found it in Peter the Great — the revolutionary on the throne, the demiurge of St Petersburg’s Russia. That cult, which was seemingly organic for that culture, concealed the expectations that can be politically deciphered as “the dictatorship of development”. It was Peter’s model of transformation (radical upheaval, a step from the past into the future, with the leader heading the process) that was adopted by the Russian culture as a normative. The revolution and the new (“October”) world, with its eulogy of the future, dictatorship, and cult of the leader, have become the answer to the questions of the beginning of the century and their test. The article views revolution precisely as an experience (which, for all its intensity and tragic nature, has received insufficient reflection) that failed to have any impact on the subsequent political practice. At the same time, although the main goal of the study is political in nature, the author draws on literary, mostly poetic sources, showing how revolutionary practice (not only at the start, but also at the end of the century) highlights the extent to which the “irresponsible chatter” of poets was truly reflective in political and moral respects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2022-104-1-162-182\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2022-104-1-162-182","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

19世纪末20世纪初是俄罗斯的一个分水岭。这是一个“神权”时代,即在政治、经济、科学和文化方面摆脱以前的神(权威、限制、强制和控制)的时代。从这个意义上说,“打倒专制!”在政治上相当于诗人的口号“把普希金从现代性的船上扔下去”。诗人,就像政治家一样,想要摆脱过去,去掉它的关键——沙皇,旧的权力。一些人打算重建它,另一些人则重新考虑它。政治家在“地理”(先进、民主的欧洲的政治结构)中寻找理想,诗人在文化中寻找理想。他们在彼得大帝身上找到了它——王位上的革命者,圣彼得堡俄国的造物主。这种崇拜似乎是这种文化的有机产物,它隐藏着可以在政治上解读为“发展专政”的期望。正是彼得的转型模式(激进的剧变,从过去走向未来,由领导人领导这一进程)被俄罗斯文化采纳为一种规范。革命和新世界(“十月”),连同它对未来的歌颂、独裁和对领袖的崇拜,已成为本世纪初问题及其考验的答案。这篇文章准确地将革命视为一种未能对随后的政治实践产生任何影响的经验(尽管它的强度和悲剧性都没有得到充分的反思)。与此同时,尽管研究的主要目的是政治性的,但作者借鉴了文学,主要是诗歌的来源,表明革命实践(不仅在本世纪初,而且在本世纪末)如何突出了诗人的“不负责任的喋喋不休”在政治和道德方面真正反映的程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Literature and Dictatorship: Culture of the Beginning of the 20th Century in Search of Ideal Power (Essay)
The end of the 19th — beginning of the 20th century is a watershed moment for Russia. It was the era of “theomachy”, or getting rid of the former gods (authorities, restrictions, coercion and control), in politics, economy, science and culture. In this sense, the motto “Down with the autocracy!” is the political equivalent of the poets’ slogan “Throw Pushkin off the ship of Modernity”. Poets, like politicians, wanted to break out of the past by removing its linchpin — the tsar, the old power. Some intended to reestablish it, others — to rethink it. Politicians sought their ideal in “geography” (the political structure of advanced, democratic Europe), poets — in culture. And they found it in Peter the Great — the revolutionary on the throne, the demiurge of St Petersburg’s Russia. That cult, which was seemingly organic for that culture, concealed the expectations that can be politically deciphered as “the dictatorship of development”. It was Peter’s model of transformation (radical upheaval, a step from the past into the future, with the leader heading the process) that was adopted by the Russian culture as a normative. The revolution and the new (“October”) world, with its eulogy of the future, dictatorship, and cult of the leader, have become the answer to the questions of the beginning of the century and their test. The article views revolution precisely as an experience (which, for all its intensity and tragic nature, has received insufficient reflection) that failed to have any impact on the subsequent political practice. At the same time, although the main goal of the study is political in nature, the author draws on literary, mostly poetic sources, showing how revolutionary practice (not only at the start, but also at the end of the century) highlights the extent to which the “irresponsible chatter” of poets was truly reflective in political and moral respects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Political Philosophy is an international journal devoted to the study of theoretical issues arising out of moral, legal and political life. It welcomes, and hopes to foster, work cutting across a variety of disciplinary concerns, among them philosophy, sociology, history, economics and political science. The journal encourages new approaches, including (but not limited to): feminism; environmentalism; critical theory, post-modernism and analytical Marxism; social and public choice theory; law and economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies; and game theoretic, socio-biological and anthropological approaches to politics. It also welcomes work in the history of political thought which builds to a larger philosophical point and work in the philosophy of the social sciences and applied ethics with broader political implications. Featuring a distinguished editorial board from major centres of thought from around the globe, the journal draws equally upon the work of non-philosophers and philosophers and provides a forum of debate between disparate factions who usually keep to their own separate journals.
×
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