Critical Theory from Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago: Style, Technique, and Ideologiekritik

IF 0.4 4区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas Pub Date : 2022-01-06 DOI:10.1353/pan.2022.0010
John Welsh
{"title":"Critical Theory from Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago: Style, Technique, and Ideologiekritik","authors":"John Welsh","doi":"10.1353/pan.2022.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the almost two thousand pages of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago there radiates an excoriating condemnation of the Soviet state. However, though it is doubtless true that “Solzhenitsyn repudiates Marxism” (Medvedev 1974b: 69), a now axiomatic reading of The Gulag Archipelago and his other works, this does not rule out The Gulag Archipelago as a source for critical theorizing and social analysis in our own time. I argue that Solzhenitsyn cannot so easily be quarantined off from the practices, predicates, and propensities of the critical or even marxian tradition, just as one cannot really say that there are no tools of critical theory in Solzhenitsyn’s prose. There exists a more nuanced relationship in The Gulag Archipelago to the deeper tradition of critical philosophy through and beyond marxian critique. Most scholarship on Solzhenitsyn-the-Man has repeatedly read the book as a conservative counter-revolutionary tract, a view which has been entrenched since its original publication in the early 1970s. The consequence is that The Gulag Archipelago itself has today been incorporated into the totalizing reputation of Solzhenitsyn’s corpus, but a reputation mostly earned by Solzhenitsyn in other places. The triumphant, Fukuyamist, post-Soviet, and largely Atlanticist secondary scholarship has variously stressed Solzhenitsyn’s metaphysical idealism, religiosity (Ericson and Mahoney xli), conservative constitutionalism (Rowley; Ericson and Mahoney xxxix), anti-modernism (Tempest 2010), authoritarianism (Congdon 56–57; Laber 4), ethno-nationalism (Confino; Yanov 565–66; Mandel 56), Counter-Enlightenment proclivities (Medvedev 1974b: 71), and even putative propinquity to the extreme Right on certain issues (Rowley 336). However, though these observations and assessments have emerged primarily from his later publitsistika writings of the 1990s, they have generally built upon the condemnatory assessment of The Gulag Archipelago that emerged from the Left at the time it was first published in English in 1974. It is from this early critical literature that the enduring portrait of The Gulag Archipelago emerges as a work of","PeriodicalId":42435,"journal":{"name":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","volume":"52 1","pages":"27 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2022.0010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Throughout the almost two thousand pages of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago there radiates an excoriating condemnation of the Soviet state. However, though it is doubtless true that “Solzhenitsyn repudiates Marxism” (Medvedev 1974b: 69), a now axiomatic reading of The Gulag Archipelago and his other works, this does not rule out The Gulag Archipelago as a source for critical theorizing and social analysis in our own time. I argue that Solzhenitsyn cannot so easily be quarantined off from the practices, predicates, and propensities of the critical or even marxian tradition, just as one cannot really say that there are no tools of critical theory in Solzhenitsyn’s prose. There exists a more nuanced relationship in The Gulag Archipelago to the deeper tradition of critical philosophy through and beyond marxian critique. Most scholarship on Solzhenitsyn-the-Man has repeatedly read the book as a conservative counter-revolutionary tract, a view which has been entrenched since its original publication in the early 1970s. The consequence is that The Gulag Archipelago itself has today been incorporated into the totalizing reputation of Solzhenitsyn’s corpus, but a reputation mostly earned by Solzhenitsyn in other places. The triumphant, Fukuyamist, post-Soviet, and largely Atlanticist secondary scholarship has variously stressed Solzhenitsyn’s metaphysical idealism, religiosity (Ericson and Mahoney xli), conservative constitutionalism (Rowley; Ericson and Mahoney xxxix), anti-modernism (Tempest 2010), authoritarianism (Congdon 56–57; Laber 4), ethno-nationalism (Confino; Yanov 565–66; Mandel 56), Counter-Enlightenment proclivities (Medvedev 1974b: 71), and even putative propinquity to the extreme Right on certain issues (Rowley 336). However, though these observations and assessments have emerged primarily from his later publitsistika writings of the 1990s, they have generally built upon the condemnatory assessment of The Gulag Archipelago that emerged from the Left at the time it was first published in English in 1974. It is from this early critical literature that the enduring portrait of The Gulag Archipelago emerges as a work of
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
索尔仁尼琴《古拉格群岛》的批判理论:风格、技巧与意识形态批判
在亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴(alexander Solzhenitsyn)近两千页的《古拉格群岛》(the Gulag Archipelago)中,充斥着对苏维埃国家的严厉谴责。然而,尽管毫无疑问“索尔仁尼琴否定马克思主义”(Medvedev 1974b: 69)是对《古拉格群岛》和他的其他作品的一种不言自明的解读,但这并不排除《古拉格群岛》是我们这个时代批判性理论和社会分析的来源。我认为,不能轻易地将索尔仁尼琴与批评甚至马克思主义传统的实践、谓词和倾向隔离开来,就像我们不能说索尔仁尼琴的散文中没有批评理论的工具一样。在《古拉格群岛》中,通过马克思主义的批判和超越马克思主义的批判,存在着一种与更深层的批判哲学传统更微妙的关系。大多数研究索尔仁尼琴的学者反复把这本书当作一本保守的反革命小册子来读,这种观点自20世纪70年代初最初出版以来就根深蒂固。结果是,《古拉格群岛》本身今天已经被纳入索尔仁尼琴的文集中,但这个名声主要是由索尔仁尼琴在其他地方赢得的。胜利的福山派、后苏联派和主要是大西洋派的次要学者不同程度地强调索尔仁尼琴的形而上学唯心主义、宗教性(埃里克森和马奥尼xli)、保守的宪政主义(罗利;埃里克森和马奥尼xxxix),反现代主义(暴风雨2010),威权主义(康登56-57;Laber 4),民族主义(Confino;Yanov 565 - 66;曼德尔56),反启蒙倾向(梅德韦杰夫1974b: 71),甚至在某些问题上被认为接近极右(罗利336)。然而,尽管这些观察和评价主要来自他后来在20世纪90年代的宣传著作,但它们通常是建立在1974年英文版首次出版时左派对《古拉格群岛》的谴责性评价之上的。正是从这些早期的批评文学作品中,《古拉格群岛》成为一部经久不衰的作品
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Partial Answers is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary journal that focuses on the study of literature and the history of ideas. This interdisciplinary component is responsible for combining analysis of literary works with discussions of historical and theoretical issues. The journal publishes articles on various national literatures including Anglophone, Hebrew, Yiddish, German, Russian, and, predominately, English literature. Partial Answers would appeal to literature scholars, teachers, and students in addition to scholars in philosophy, cultural studies, and intellectual history.
期刊最新文献
(Re)directing Literature to Justice: Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” The Painter and the Muse: On Archetypes, Complexes and the Anti-Jungian Quest for Mother in Kurt Vonnegut’s Bluebeard The Bo/ald Woman in Auschwitz: From Abjection to Writing The Book of Esther: Notes for a Traditional Reading Kinship Novels of Early Modern Korea: Between Genealogical Time and the Domestic Everyday by Ksenia Chizhova (review)
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1