From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Luna Park
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:17:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct15.111721.16412
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <93134@netnews.upenn.edu> 
sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin) writes:

>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>Simple.  In politics, the moment you say "Save Russia"  you imply
>>the need for a response "From what?", which, under the circumstances, is
>>synonymous with "From whom?"; 

SB:
>Yeah. Especially if you have a strong desire for that. And asking that
>question you, of course, are asuming the answer. And here it goes:

MZ:
>>now, you tell me, from whom do you propose to
>>save Russia?  As a necessary condition, I suppose your enemies must be not
>>wholly Russian...

SB:
>Nice twist.  And having destorted the meaning of my words and implied the
>answer, now can start shouting: "antisemite", or even better, "fascist". 

Perhaps you would care to stipulate the meaning of your words in a way that
would not be amenable to easy distortion.  In the meantime, I shall
elaborate: politics is done with human material.  If you declare yourself
to be against anything whatsoever, your struggle will not be political
until you identify the human agency responsible for proliferating your
favorite threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Russianness, or what
have you. Otherwise, there would be no point to articulate a political
platform.  In the Presidium, you can never hear the sound of one hand
clapping: like in _1984_, opposition is not a luxury, but a necessity.
Witness the valiant attempts of the AIDS activists to identify the evil
*humans* responsible for this dreaded natural calamity; if their goal were
to fight the virus, they would never make any impact as a political force.
If there ever should appear an anti-earthquake party, you can rest assured
that the responsibility for the shifting of the tectonic plates will be
vested into the CIA, the KGB, the mafia, or some shiftless individuals,
depending.

MZ:
>>>>Indeed, as noted Spinoza, _definitio est negatio_: you can only
>>>>define Russianness by circumscribing and separating it from that, which is
>>>>not Russian. 

SB:
>>>How then would you define "Jewishness"? According to you and many
>>>other posters, by separating it from non-Jewishness.(and it was nicely
>>>demonstrated here). 

MX:
>>I don't recall having expressed myself on this subject in the present
>>venue, so kindly abstain from gratuitous attributions.

SB:
>That's strange. Wasn't it you who quoted Spinoza? I just substituted 
>'Russianness' by 'Jewishness'.

Point well taken.  Indeed, I implied as much in my claim.

MZ:
>>Jewishness is an
>>ethnic and cultural quality inherited through matrilineal descent, or
>>acquired through religious practice.  So what?

SB:
>Oh, I see. From the one hand :
>"you can only
>define Russianness by circumscribing and separating it from that, which is
>not Russian." (MZ.)
>
>And from the other: 
>"Jewishness is an
>ethnic and cultural quality inherited through matrilineal descent, or
>acquired through religious practice." (the same MZ)
>
>Nice, isn't it? In other words, Russians don't have that "ethnic and 
>cultural quality". Moreover, there is no such a thing as Russian 
>culture, because of the definition of 'Russiannes'. And even a talk 
>about it is sorta non-intelligent and there is something vile in it. 

No, you don't see.  We are talking past each other.  Insofar as it
presupposes a specification of ethnic and cultural specificity, or
religious ritual, my definition of Jewishness is certainly dependent on
exclusion.  Again, so what?  I am certainly not trying to grant the Jews
any sort of license to oppress non-Jews by means of political promotion of
"Jewishness", just as I would never do likewise for the Russians.  There is
no difference in value between the two cases.

MZ:
>>Well, both were born on the territory of the Russian empire, so at least by
>>birth they must belong to the Russian national culture, inasmuch as the
>>latter may be constituted by criteria of geography and citizenship.

SB:
>Weren't they "Rossijskie poddanye"?` Place of birth doesn't determine 
>the belongness to a culture. What about Isaak Asimov? Does he belong
>to the Russian culture?
>BTW, did Zhabotinsky belong to the Russian culture as well? (I don't mean
>the sportsman, as you should have guessed).

Ah, but the mythical "Russian culture" is your very own private
hobby-horse, so it is incumbent upon you to tell me just who does, and who
does not belong.  As for me, I simply don't give a diddly fuck about etnic
culture of any sort, especially when called upon to define its boundaries
by gerrymandering, as political exigencies will often demand.  What about
Kazan?

Incidentally, would you say that Colonel Dreifus was an authentic
representative of the French culture?  More to the point, do you believe,
as apparently does Giscard d'Estaing, and certainly -- Le Pen, that the
said culture is passed on through blood lineage?

MZ:
>>However, I find it rather hard to believe that any contemporary Russian
>>nationalist would recognize either of them as a representative of Russian
>>culture, constituted by a common language,

SB:
>Is it enough just to speak a language in order to belong to some culture?
>(Note please, I'm not saying that they don't belong). You see, we have 
>different definitions (that's for sure). You determine 'Russianness' just
>by separating it "from that, which is not Russian" and implying that place
>of birth and common language are more than enough to belong. At the
>same time you intentionly keep forgetting that there is something besides
>literature (would you guess? - like religion, for instance).

No, Sergei, you misunderstand me once again.  I have no definition of
Russianness; instead of offering any sort of dogma on this subject, I am
merely presenting you with some alternatives, in the hope of eliciting your
own definition.

As for religion, isn't that a way to say "who is not with us, is against
us"?  Or do you not believe that only the faithful will be saved?

MZ:
>>or, more ominously, by ethnic
>>descent (are Gogol or Mandelshtam Russian writers?)

SB:
>Isn't it better to ask them? :-) Did they feel themselves belonging to that
>culture? That's the main point. Was Katherine the Great a Russian Tsaritsa?
>I mean, did she feel herself Russian? 

Well now, so what if they feel themselves belonging to anything whatsoever?
The way things are going, very soon the whole world will feel themselves
belonging to the American culture.  Should this come to pass, would you
rule that their private feeling would automatically imbue them with an
authentic quality of Americanness?

Conversely, I never felt myself a Russian, but rather a Russian Jew.  What
do you propose to do about that?  What do you propose to do about several
million of Russian Tatar Moslems?

MZ:
>>Frankly, Sergei, I don't think there is anything wrong with me that is any
>>of your concern. 

SB:
>Frankly, I don't care if there is something wrong with you. 

So why bother asking what is?

SB:
>							     Just be nice.

That's my girlfriend's line, you dirty rat!

MZ:
>>Furthermore, I don't give a rat's arse whether you choose
>>to glorify Russian culture, your spotted underwear, or Limburger cheese, --
>>just as long as you don't try to make it into a matter of state policy.

SB:
>Verrry colorful. Gotta be a very intelligent person. Anyway, Try not 
>to imply different meanings. Who's talking about "state policy"?

Well, what in the world are you talking about then?  Perhaps the Pokrovsky
ensemble, or the Army choir?  Or would you channel your restorative efforts
into varnishing the Kremlin towers?  What would it take to "save" the
Russian culture?  Exactly from what would you "save" it?

SB:
>>>I got the picture: you are just trying to confirm what Shafarevich had
>>>said in his "Russophobia", aren't you? 

MZ:
>>No, but it looks like you are trying to follow it.

SB:
>I am not and don't. But you are constantly confirming "Russophobia". 

And how might that be?  Observe that it is you, not I, who is citing it in
a positive way.

MZ:
>>Any nation can and shall have its national culture (call me a rootless
>>cosmopolite, but, personally, I am old-fashioned enough to prefer the
>>universal variety, whose existence you profess to deny); 

SB:
>Well, I'm not against variety and never denied it. What I said is
>that there is no "world culture" or "european culture". There are
>cultures of many nations but there is no "universal culture".

A very common reactionary line, this.  Unfortunately, you are not half
as entertaining as Joseph de Maistre, who has the dubious honor of
being the first to articulate it in opposition to the humanistic
precepts of the Enlightenment, politicized by the French Revolution. 
Try this for size, for world culture:

(i) 	_The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen_
(ii)	The Ten Commandments
(iii)	Modus Ponens
(iv)	The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
(v)	e = mc^2
(vi)	the missionary position
(vii)	Big Mac
(viii)	gunpowder
(ix)	oral sex
(x)	cannabis
(xi)    C_2H_5OH
(xii)	the uppercut
(xiii)	the printing press
(xiv)	the Yen
(xv)	pizza
(xvi)	antibiotics
(xvii)	the blues
(xviii)	aspirin
(xix)	fireworks
(xx)	etc.

Get the picture?

MZ:
>>however no nation,
>>big or small, has any right whatsoever to make it into an instrument of
>>social oppression.

SB:
>Who's talking about opression? Your mind is really twisted. It is hard
>to deny that Russian culture was almost destroyed during last 70 years.

If I do not deny your claim, it is only because I am so baffled by it.
Destroyed by whom?  And how?  What the fuck *is* "Russian culture"?

SB:
>I'm talking about saving it, M. Zeleny understands that as an attempt
>to oppress others. We are speaking different languages. 

Indeed we are.  The worst of it is, you consistently refuse to follow my
practice of defining your terms.  It makes me wonder whether even *you*
know what you are talking about.

MZ:
>>while at the worst, you will become dangerous to
>>the others (cf. Hitler, Khomeini, et al.), at which point I shall be forced
>>to ask all decent, freedom-loving people to assist me in implementing a
>>permanent and irreversible reeducation program for you and your followers.

SB:
>Is it a threat? 

Hardly.

SB:
>		 You, probably, remember that such an attempt had been made
>in 1917, but happened to be well reversible.

I think there is very little chance of the two of us ever coming to terms
concerning just what sort of attempt had been made in 1917, and just how
reversible it has proven to be.

SB:
>Finally, I hope that not M.Zeleny and his followers will decide what is good 
>and what is bad for Russia and who's dangerous and must be reeducated.

Of course not!  How could the real Russian people tolerate "inorodtsy"
deciding their destiny?  It looks like you are yet another believer in
national self-determination.  Where, o where are those intrepid Ukrainian
nationalists, Bilaniuk and Shvartsman, when we really need them?

SB:
>May we still use our language in Russia or we must rush to learn esperanto?
>It will be easier to communicate with different nations in "polluted"
>Russia.

You have my express permission to use whatever language you like; however I
offer no guarantee that you will be liked (cf. Estonia), or even
understood.  Incidentally, I note that your English has been improving.

>S.B.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,talk.politic.soviet