The guiding theme of the two sessions was the question of how literature reflects issues of economic and political modernization. Travin is convinced that in studying reform in any era, we must pay attention to how such events are revealed in literature, as writers often work with the theme of societal change. It is namely through literature that we can tap into the social context of an era.
The first text that Travin discussed was Ivan Goncharov’s novel, Oblomov.
Comparing this novel to other examples from European literature, Travin tried to demonstrate that Oblomov is in no sense a specifically Russian character. On the contrary, many characters like him can be found in European literature, and he is more a typical representative of the post-reform period.
In Spanish literature, a hero such as Oblomov appears as Don Quixote. He too lives at the turn of the era and can’t find his place in the new world. Don Quixote is Oblomov’s analogue in the sense that he is a non-constructive hero. In French literature, Julien Sorel, the protagonist in Stednhal’s “The Red and the Black,” occupies this position. In the transitional period, as Travin explained, society was organized in such a way that it was possible to conduct non-constructive activities. In the post-reform period, protagonists such as Stoltz are the exception rather than the rule. Any country under the conditions of reform will bear characters such as Oblomov. Oblomov is thus international, and not an exclusively Russian type.
Travin then turned his attention to Turgenev’s novel, Fathers and Sons. Turgenev, among other characteristics of the post-reform period, was one of the first authors to pay attention to the conflict of generations in the changing of eras. In Fathers and Sons, Turgenev shows that there are certain things that can be done only by the generation that is ready for them. In all of his works, Turgenev created a series of characters situated in conflict with changing life circumstances: from Rudin, the hero of an eponymous novel (1856), to Nezhdanov, hero of the novel Virgin Soil [Nov’] (1877), Turgenev describes a whole cycle of generational changes. In Turgenev’s works we learn that along with other interpretations, we must also use generational analyses.
Travin proposes to apply all the conclusions drawn from the study of Russian literature to contemporary Russia. Today’s Russia, according to Travin, is the result of the actions of one generation—of the seventies—i.e. those people who came of age between 1968 and 1985. The Gaidar Forum is quintessentially of the seventies generation; the Putin Team is the same phenomenon. In analyzing the structure of contemporary society it is important to point out the existing difference between the generations of the sixties (1953-1968) and the seventies. The sixties generation was guided by ideas and sought to change lives and downplay surrounding circumstances. The seventies generation, on the contrary, began to adapt to the realities of life. The main features of this generation are pragmatism, conformism, and cynicism.
To clarify the specifics of the contemporary generation and to show the results of the actions of the seventies generation, Travin suggests that we turn to Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov. The Brothers Karamazov is a great social analysis of Russia, spanning the era of reform. The four brothers—Dmitry, Ivan, Alexei and Smerdyakov—represent our personality types. According to Travin, these same four types manifested themselves in Russian reality after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In contrast to the Soviet past when all human life was defined for years to come, the 90s generation, like Dostoevsky’s characters, lived in complete uncertainty.
The first personality type is Mitya Karamazov. He personifies completely irrational behavior. He can’t cope with the freedom given to him, nor can he limit himself, and is subject to passions. In the 90s, similar people lost their jobs and couldn’t find a place in the new society. The second type is the absolute rationalist, such as Smerdyakov. Freedom is granted to each character, but each handles it in his own way. If Mitya is susceptible to passions, then Smerdyakov operates according to the principle of “if there is no God, then everything is permitted.” One may kill or create a business or a pyramid scheme if the new laws of society have not yet been born. The third type, represented by Ivan Karamazov, uses his freedom not for enrichment, but for rebuilding the world. Finally, there are people of the fourth type, such as Alyosha Karamazov, who don’t know how to use their freedom. Unlike Mitya, however, they are not given to passions, and wait for a reliable new master.
What would happen to Dostoevsky’s characters, asked Travin, if they lived in the 90s? And from which of them would the future come? Those such as Mitya are people without a future. They disappear in the new world. The same goes for the second type, the Smerdyakovs. Those called the “new Russians,” are either forced to leave or end their lives in prison. The third type is what has become the “creative class”—journalists and philosophers. And the fourth, most numerous type, is referred to by sociologists as the “new poor.” These were the people who gladly accepted perestroika and expected the timely onset of a bright future. In reality, however, they worked without pay for dying companies.
Travin concluded with the remark that if the typical Russian everyman, such as Alyosha, begins to reflect on his current situation independently, then Russia will be offered the chance to exit into a civilized society.
Olga Bashkina
