As Ukrainian forces continue their campaign into the Kursk region
of Russia, we’re starting to see the sort of video footage we saw in the early
days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – distraught Slavic girls weeping over the
loss of their homes and villages, talking with special pain about barely getting
their beloved pets out. And yet compared to their Ukrainian counterparts, these
Russians are treated by the commentariat with rather less sympathy.
The top comment: “Welcome to your special military operation.” And if anything, the other comments were harsher.
Even as cynical a fuck as I can be, there seems to be
something uniquely horrifying about gleefully cheering on the suffering of
civilians in combat. It’s nothing new, but it remains awfully grim. But while
the media has long assumed this kind of sadistic glee to be standard in the
Global South, what I find particularly bleak here is that most of the enthusiastic
rubberneckers here are from the heart of the metropolis of the Global North,
and would likely describe themselves as broadly liberal in their outlook. So I
have to wonder why that is.
I won’t try to draw a full genealogy of how liberal political theories and ethical systems emerged in sync with the Age of Reason, but tl;dr, ethics were no longer exclusively seen as being concomitant with personal virtue or divine grace. Rather, nifty new systems – consequentialism, Kantianism, and so forth – were presented (correctly in my book) as more reasonable and humane approaches, and became standard among the more liberal elements of society.
Yet a certain Puritanism remains, and I use this word very deliberately
not in its usual sense (i.e. being a fucking buzzkill) but to mean a certain
kind of Protestant attitude manifested in the various religious strands that
draw their lineage to the writings of John Calvin. One in which, lacking the
possibility of salvation through the institution of the Church, it ultimately
fell on the individual to demonstrate their salvation or lack thereof, and
among the New England Puritans and the Dutch Calvinists, this was manifested in
both the form of a rigid theology and a full-throated enthusiasm for mercantile
capitalism. The two go hand in hand – demonstrations of value on both the
spiritual and material planes.
While not many people would call themselves Puritans or even Calvinists per se anymore, but the specter remains strong in the Anglosphere. You are either a good person who believes good things and whose works are by definition good works, given your moral virtue, or the opposite is true.
And so this girl becomes a proxy for the moral failings of
her nation, rather than an individual suffering the consequences of a brutal
conflict.
It’s not just her, either. It’s hard to ignore a larger-scale demonization not only of Russia’s illegal invasion, but of its people and history. Western symphony orchestras refuse to play the Russian classics, and Russian artists and filmmakers find their work so often no longer welcome in the NATO member states. A certain bitter irony, considering how many of these musicians, artists, and filmmakers have risked their livelihoods and even their lives in support of those very Enlightenment values of personal freedom, secular and egalitarian governance, and resistance to the authoritarian pall that has so long been over Russia. At least back during the Cold War, dissident Russian writers who made it stateside could count on the Western establishment to wax rhapsodic over Pushkin and Tchaikovsky while they feted them at Ford Foundation events. Now even the dissidents – who, in contemporary Russia, are all the only ones making decent art – are too often given the cold shoulder at best.
And this irony is doubled when you consider how many of
those calls for the exclusion of Russian culture seem to be from my fellow Americans
– where were the calls for the boycott of our culture during our pretty damn
unspeakable and illegal invasion of Iraq, for instance, or any of the horrors
of American empire that persist to this day?
This isn’t to say that a mass boycott of my own nation should have been done – it would have been moronic. Because people are not their nations. And especially in the sphere of art and culture, that is where we should find our solidarity and common humanity, rather than conflating people with the nations they happen to be citizens of. A liberty-cabbage attitude isn’t going to get us very far.
I say this particularly as someone who has always adored Russian art, and the many strange forms it has taken on the creepy and ragged edge of Europe, always peering into the core of Western civilization from just outside. In the early years of the 20th Century, Scriabin, in his peculiar and dissonant compositions, sought to explore the secret mystical codes that undergirded human behavior. Across town, Malevich looked for forms that evaded representation and which captured pure feeling, and Vertov chopped and screwed the language of cinema just as Eisenstein was inventing it.
But my first and greatest love is for Russian literature. Because what I have always adored is the transcendence and cruelty and absurdity and individuality and nuance and experimentation of it all, often in the same paragraph. Raskolnikov kills the old woman for barely any reason, because everything is awful and life sucks. Dead souls are sold on the steppe for crisp brand new rubles. How can one not gasp at an opening line like the following…
“Once upon a time in Russia, there really was a carefree, youthful generation that smiled in joy at the summer, the sea, and the sun, and they chose Pepsi.”
- Victor Pelevin, Generation Pi
Pelevin wrote those lines in the chaotic period around the breakup of the USSR, when the economy cratered under shock-therapy programs while Western talking heads still chirped on about freedom, when the authoritarian Old Guard effortlessly transitioned from devout communists to devout Orthodox conservatives, interest quietly accruing in Swiss bank accounts. What better to read in a time of hopelessness and weirdness and outright grifting?
In the mid-1980s, Paul Simon, despite the cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa, went to Johannesburg, fascinated by the cassettes he’d heard of black musicians in the townships. Rather than shutting out artists merely by dint of their nationality, he used his star power to champion the voices of those suffering under apartheid, listening to their songs and stories, discovering their unique musical idiom. And with them, he put out Graceland, which, while it’s easy to deride as your mother-in-law’s favorite album, remains one of the best singer-songwriter albums of the decade, and one of the few later albums by a ‘60s titan that is actually good. He chose not to excommunicate, but to engage.
I don’t have his connections, but I can engage. And what could give me greater pleasure, on this rainy night, than a little Shostakovich before bed?
