From: bross@splatter.nas.nasa.gov (Bill Ross)
Subject:  Anti-democratic intelligentsia?
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 01:32:39 GMT
Reply-To: bross@splatter.nas.nasa.gov (Bill Ross)

(To my surprise, this article has drawn no response from the RUSSIA
listserv in over 24 hours since posting it there. This msg is slightly
improved.)

There is an interesting article in the September 21 New Republic:
"Kitchen debate (Russia's nationalist intelligentsia)," by L.
Greenfeld. It would be nice if a scanned-in copy could be made
available, since the following summary leaves out interesting
examples and historical narration as well as suffering from
rephrasing. By the way, that issue of New Republic happens to be 
a pretty good one in general, so may be worth getting.

While the thesis of the article seems plausible to me, I wish
I had more experience with which to evaluate it.  Hopefully
the net response will prove enlightening.

The article:

     "In Russia, the intelligentsia always saw itself as an
     aristocracy. It enjoyed prestige incomparable to that of
     other groups--a prestige related to its contribution to
     Russia's international standing. For Russia's greatness
     was understood, first and foremost, as the greatness of
     Russian culture, a reflection of the nation's moral
     superiority, in comparison to which political and economic
     failings appeared trivial. Literature, in particular, was
     invested with authority, and for that reason often doubled
     as social criticism."  In general the intelligentsia "were
     prepared to play a great role in society and then were denied
     that role and the status that went with it."

     To compensate, other orders of existence emerged. especially
     "kitchen circles" - friends meeting to discuss - which were
     regarded as a substitute for public recognition. Kitchen 
     recognition was based on who one was (belonging) rather than 
     achievement.  "Significantly, kitchen circles freed one of
     economic effort as well. In the Soviet economy, the more friends
     one had, the less money one needed, for the chief economic problem
     was not the expense of goods, but the difficulty of finding them."

     While 'the system' was the perceived enemy of the kitchen circles, 
     the concepts of democracy and capitalism were less understood:
     the real preferred alternative social order was based on the
     ethic of the circles themselves: 'sobornost' (togetherness) as
     opposed to Western 'freedom'/individualism. "The ideas of 
     democracy and capitalism are ... deeply foreign ... They go
     against the values that form the core of the Russian national
     consciousness, particularly the belief that the intelligentsia
     forms a natural social elite, as well as its collectivism and
     authoritarianism, its otherworldly orientation, its proud
     irrationality and lack of discipline. These values ... are the
     basis of the kitchen circles with their warmth and cozy sense
     of protectedness as much as they were the basis of the political
     system the kitchen circles aimed to stir."

     Now kitchen circles are breaking up as people scrambling to make
     money have less time to meet. Money becomes more important relative 
     to friends, and envy of those who have more of it develops. The regime 
     no longer provides something to unite against, so disagreement is more
     common. The intelligentsia finds itself scrambling alongside the hoi
     polloi, which offends their sense of status. Money becomes more
     important relative to friends, and envy of those who have more
     of it develops.

     "The masses want 'sausage' and the so-called 'democrats' in power
     have discredited themselves by their patent inability to serve it.
     The elite want status; democracy they now see, would rob them of
     it." The anti-democratic values of Russia's nationalism which
     made communism possible have not been questioned, and it seems
     quite possible that another non-democratic society will emerge.

My own thoughts:

The potential transition in values from 'togetherness' to 'profit'
reminds me of the U.S. transition from the 60's to the 80's. A
scene from the TV show "Taxi" comes to mind in which good, beautiful
and practical character Elaine spontaneously says to scruffy, lovable, 
scatterbrained character Jim (whose romantic interest she has refused)
"You're a good person, Jim." To which he sadly replies, "I remember when
that was enough." 

Bill Ross

Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet