CompaRe | Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft
Refine
Document Type
- Article (6)
Language
- English (6) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Keywords
- Sowjetunion (6) (remove)
In the present context of the triumph of capitalism over real socialism, this article points out that, despite their ideological differences, both systems are bound to the same conception of history-as-progress. In contrast, it recalls Walter Benjamin's philosophy of history, marked by the critique of progress in the name of a revolutionary time, which interrupts history's chronological continuum. Benjamin's perspective is used to study the conflict of temporalities among the Soviet artists in the two decades after the October Revolution: on the one hand, the anarchic, autonomous and critical time of interruption – which is the time of avant-gade –, on the other hand, the synchronization with the ideas of a progressive time as ordered by the Communist Patty; this is the time of vanguard, whose capitalist Counterpart is fashion.
Though one should be very careful with reaching conclusions about the social views conveyed in 'The Beach of Falesá', and there are many opinions on the story's social message, one of them is "the exposure of white racism" (Menikoff 1984,57) and imperialism. The logical question, why this country, which is declaring itself a bulwark against the world's imperialism, would disapprove of such novel, reasonably appears. And the censoring of it could seem a complete non sequitur. Which 'ideas' could make this novel not suitable for an average Soviet reader in the eyes of the Soviet censorship?
It has been mostly forgotten today that Varlam Shalamov had once identified himself as a passionate supporter of the so-called 'nauchno-khudozhestvennaia literatura'. This term is derived from the Russian term for fiction ('khudozhestvennaia literatura') and can be translated as "scientific-fictional literature" but also as "scientific-artistic literature." Hence all of the advocates of the term, including Shalamov, emphatically insisted not only on the "fictionality" ('khudozhestvennost' '), but also on the "skill" or "art" ('iskusstvo') - the "artistic" qualities - as a fundamental element of the new genre, without which its goals could not be achieved. [...] But what kind of genre was this sort of literature, now mostly forgotten, for which Shalamov had so much hope? To answer this question, Matthias Schwartz reconstrucs the conditions in the late 1920s and early 1930s that motivated Maxim Gorky and the then famous children's book author Samuil Marshak, on the eve of the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers, to launch this compound adjective, 'nauchno-khudozhestvennaia literatura', and to create a new type of literature located at the intersection of literary fiction and science journalism. In highlighting the main arguments around this literature, Schwartz elaborates how difficult and disputed its constitution was in the course of the gradual establishment of Socialist Realism as the singular aesthetic doctrine for literary production and why it did not succeed in establishing itself as a separate literary genre until the postwar period. In the last section Schwartz analyzes the characteristics of one of the most emblematic works written in this literary field before briefly returning to a more generalizing conclusion and taking a look at the modest afterlife of the genre since the Thaw period.
The Soviet Union is remembered as a lab for socioeconomic changes on larges scales and environmental catastrophes: the Chernobyl disaster, the Aral Sea tragedy, and ecocide. However, little is known about the groundbreaking concepts and theories of Russian and early Soviet science which laid the foundation for systemic ecological thinking, environmental consciousness for nature conservation, and corresponding initiatives of the revolutionary years after 1917. The isolation of Eastern Europe that came as a result of Stalinism and the Cold War led to Soviet science developing its own scientific approaches and terminology during the 20th century. This does not only include ideological constructions and practices such as the pseudo-scientific Lysenkoism which outlawed genetics and led to disastrous effects on agriculture, the people, and the scientific community. Soviet science has also managed to continue and unfold the new concepts and interdisciplinary dynamics of the ecological turn on the threshold of the 20th century, a development which, at that time, was only sporadically noted in the West. In the context of its thematic focus on Eastern European ecological terminology, this issue discusses a selection of these concepts.
Metabolism has long served as a broad organizing concept in Russian and Soviet culture for the exchange of material and energy between organisms and their environment. The Russian term 'obmen veshchestv', literally meaning "exchange of substances", semantically ranges beyond the Latinate 'metabolizm' (metabolism) and provides a framework for reflecting on bodies and material objects as open systems engaged in a constant process of transformation. 'Obmen veshchestv' appears in public discourse in mid-19th century Russia as a calque from the German term 'Stoffwechsel' (or 'Wechsel der Materie'). Its usage in Russia reflects the enduring influence of German science. In this entry, I will explore the development and expansion of this concept of material and energy exchange between organisms and their environment in Russia and the Soviet Union. In the course of a century, metabolism migrated from discussions of plant nutrition into physiology, thermodynamics, and ultimately into the Soviet practice of state economic planning. This entry will therefore pay particular attention to the early Soviet period when existing debates on metabolism took on new urgency as tools for praxis on every scale, from the body of the individual worker to humanity's future collective management of planetary material and energy flows.
This article follows the conceptual history of regulation in the Russian and Soviet context from the late 19th to mid-20th century and emphasizes its ecological dimension. Considering that regulation is a fundamentally interdisciplinary concept applied in biology, economics, law, or political science, such a history cannot strictly limit itself to the conceptual use of regulation in ecological theory. Here, ecology is rather generally understood as a scientific knowledge of nature that is being formed in various sciences throughout the 19th and 20th century by reintegrating knowledge generated in such different disciplines as natural history, biology, medicine, physics, or physiology. This paper exemplarily traces the constitutional process of ecology as a science with regard to the concept of regulation by acknowledging the transdisciplinary and sometimes metaphorical use of the concept and its oscillation between the organic and the social, the natural and the artificial, the mechanic and the dynamic, the intrinsic and the extrinsic.