Translated material
Anthologies. Limits of power. # 1. Simon Kordonsky. The intelligentsia in the role of the national intellectual elite
INTELLIGENCE IN THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL ELITE
Simon Kordonsky
Simon Kordonsky - candidate of philosophical sciences, biochemist, sociologist. One of the creators of the direction called "administrative market theory". Head of the Eastern Center for Modern Documentation. Expert of a number of commercial, government and international organizations. He has scientific publications and writes analytical articles in central periodicals.
The problems and themes that make up the content of domestic intellectual life are not alien to a modern foreigner, but mainly at the stage of social maturation, before the acquisition of social stability. In non-democratic states, intelligence, by all accounts, exists more as a stage of individual development of people belonging to the middle class than as an independent social phenomenon. In general, the actual political activity of the national intelligentsia can be considered as a symptom of trouble in relations between the state and society. Naturally, right now, when the crisis of Russian statehood and the role of the intelligentsia in it are obvious, I would like to understand why Russian intellectuals are once again finding themselves as leaders in the movement in a closed historical circle.
This essay is more philosophical than sociological and does not pretend to be a comprehensive empirical description of the phenomenon of intelligence.
Social integration in such non-democratic states as the Russian Empire and the USSR is ensured mainly by force, but brute force turns out to be ineffective if the government, not aware of its borders, claims a certain degree of participation in the global political, technological and economic process. In order to secure their positions in the world community, among other things, specialists are needed - economists, politicians, scientists, technologists, doctors and teachers. The state is forced to provide education to its citizens, because non-specialists, as experience has shown, do not know how to maintain even stolen technologies. Specialization, however, violates the harmony of social homogeneity and requires additional government efforts to overcome it. The state channels the activity of educated people into promotion in a system of ranks and honorary titles, each of which is associated with a certain benefit and privilege. It creates local organizations with a rigid hierarchical structure, socially homogeneous within themselves (academies of sciences, creative unions), where the status distribution of benefits provided by the state takes place.
Specialists, having received an education, use the acquired experience of working with concepts and terms not only in order to “repay their debt” to the state, but also to reflect on their position, which inevitably leads to behavioral drift and activity that is not channeled by existing institutions. The state is forced to come to terms with the side activities of professionals and tries to translate it into forms that correspond to the principles of its structure and are relatively safe for itself. The activity of educated people, transformed by a non-democratic state into forms acceptable to it, in this work is called intelligence, and activists are called intellectuals. The intelligentsia serves the state when it has private tasks (such as scientific and technological progress) that cannot be solved by conventional methods of mobilizing state resources (such as universal education and forced labor of educated people, mass repressions and the associated geographical development of new territories). The intelligentsia is also necessary for the state to periodically revise the basic principles of social homogeneity, to find new foundations for organizing fair distribution.
In socially homogeneous states, such as Russia, society is derived from the state and its power intentions. The intelligentsia is a not entirely desirable element of the social order, existing in accordance with the state-recognized need for military-technical progress and ideological expansion. The intelligentsia cannot exist outside a socially homogeneous state, since it is derived from it. However, not all intelligent people find a place for themselves in the niches provided by the state, and then the state is forced to apply sanctions, declaring them renegades, dissidents, enemies of the people, Jews and mentally ill people. Hence the duality of the position of the intelligentsia: it strives for the democratization of the state, for good, law, justice, but at the same time there is no place for it in a rule-of-law state.
On the path to social homogeneity, the intelligentsia opposes the state, discussing and condemning the methods of building institutions of fair distribution and its principles. Upon achieving the goal of state development, when it turns out that social homogeneity alone is not enough for state stability both in internal affairs and in international relations, these reflections are politically actualized in the activity of constructing new principles and methods of achieving social justice.
During perestroikas (liberalizations), an intelligent society dominates over a weakened state, and public intentions are directed toward finding ways to revive a strong state that would be taken into account by significant opponents. During such periods, intellectuals, who actually constitute a self-aware society, first become influential power figures, and later, having discovered resistance to their power ambitions, they try to return life to the channel predetermined by the intelligentsia’s interpretation of history. To do this, the intelligentsia constructs images of external and internal enemies and makes efforts to consolidate society and the state to fight them. During liberalization, the intelligentsia becomes a social stratum that ensures the continuity of the ideology of a socially homogeneous society and produces authoritarian leaders striving to create a strong and tough (but “progressive”) state, where the intelligentsia has its place.
We can say that there is a law of conservation of intelligence. The initial conditions of this law include the existence of a state that opposes intelligent society, but reproduces the intelligentsia as a necessary element of its structure.
The number of intellectuals in a socially homogeneous state ultimately depends on the structure of its information space. In a pre-technological state, the number of intellectuals is identical to the audience of magazine readers, theater spectators and concertgoers. With the advent of the media and universal education, the number of intellectuals increases sharply and “education” arises (according to Solzhenitsyn).
Intelligence weakly correlates with social stratification. Representatives of all strata, social classes, ethnic groups and national groups may (or may not) be intelligent. In Russia, in particular, intelligence is derived from state policy in the field of education, science, culture, and health care. Thus, deliberate efforts to create “national schools” and develop “national cultures” led to the emergence of national intelligentsia, and the same logic efforts to develop physics, mathematics and exact fields of knowledge led to the emergence of “technical and scientific intelligentsia.”
The state has institutions such as academies of sciences, higher education institutions, industry research centers and creative unions, the functioning of which is considered the lot of the intelligentsia. According to the distinctions accepted in party reporting, the “technical,” “creative,” “scientific,” and “national” intelligentsia are still distinguished. However, the intelligentsia defines itself by its general reading of magazines and books, watching films and plays and participation in creative activities, as well as by its keen interest in the history of the state and its interpretations in art. It is in this area that the differences between different professional groups of intellectuals are insignificant. Intelligence can be defined as a special social space in socially homogeneous states, formed by the activity of educated people in the field of artistic interpretation of the history of the country and the role of the authorities, the people and the intelligentsia itself in it.
An important component of the structure of the Russian intellectual space are Jews. The coincidence of intentions of the intelligentsia and representatives of the Jewish diaspora in Russia is characteristic of times when the intelligentsia opposes the state. At the same time, intellectuals strive to realize eternal intellectual values and transform the state into a utopia, and Jews try to preserve their, also utopian, cultural identity. Jews who have lost ties with the Diaspora and received general and professional education become typical intellectuals, concerned with the problems of the relationship between the Russian state and society, but of course in a specifically Jewish context.
At the first stages of perestroika, Russian intellectuals and intelligent Jews find themselves in the same social niche in their aspirations for utopia, in order to make the state convenient for the life that seems natural to them. At the beginning of the twentieth century it was socialism, at the end of the century it was capitalism. As a result of any liberalization, their paths diverge. At the same time, the Russian national intelligentsia seeks to shift the blame for another failure onto its former allies, intelligent Jews. Intellectual anti-Semitism emerges (or rather, renews itself).
In the minds of ordinary (non-intelligent) Russians, the images of a Jew and an intellectual are almost identical, and any dissatisfaction with the violation of the usual order of things associated with perestroika (liberalization) is projected by non-intelligent people onto Jews. When intellectual anti-Semitism and popular anti-Semitism merge into one movement, the Black Hundred utopia takes shape - as an alternative to the intellectual utopia. The situation becomes especially piquant when new Russian patriots - intelligent anti-Semitic Jews - find themselves at the head of the "Black Hundred".
The fate of Russia in its intelligentsia's view is the fate of its intelligentsia, and the history of Russia is the history of the intelligentsia. But the history of Russia cannot be reduced to the history of the educated part of its citizens, although it was and is written more often by intellectuals than by historians. The written history of Russia is politically accentuated, shifted to the plane of historical reality, significant for the intelligentsia. Therefore, the history of Russia cannot become history itself; for at least two centuries it remains politically relevant. Intelligent Russia has lived and lives with an imaginary past, projected into the future - despite the disgusting present for it.
There is no politically neutral documented history in Russia. The fruits of the creative imagination of intelligent authors-historians are reinterpreted by other intellectual authors and, having become artistic images of prose, poetry and theater, turn into indispensable symbols of mass intellectual consciousness. These symbolic images, identified with famous intellectual actors who perform corresponding roles in films, theatrical productions and variety revues, largely determine the experience of the era by its intellectual contemporaries and their mode of action in those periods when the era becomes troubled. The intelligentsia's interpretation of history is personified in artificial images (archetypes), realized on stage or in texts and replacing reality, displacing it into the borderline and unreflected areas of the intelligentsia's consciousness.
The introduction of profane life into a “theatrical” context constitutes the historical task of the Russian intelligentsia and the meaning of its existence. The intelligentsia does not exist outside of historicized art and artificial history, which are created by it. The significance of the intelligentsia's interpretation of history and historicized art (in the broad sense of these concepts) in Russian state life varies depending on the harshness of life. The stronger the state and the tougher life, the more significant the historicized art and what happens in it, and vice versa.
In calm (and politically tough) times, the separation of aestheticized history, historicized art and life is absolute. In these times, historicized art (in the broad sense of the word) becomes the embodiment of the desired freedom, and therefore life. In life itself, theatricality is taboo: life becomes brutally serious. Manifestations of theatricality in the wrong place and time are punishable - as was the case with famous dissidents who came out - like the Decembrists - to the square in August 1968. In these times, Russian art violates the seriousness of life, penetrating it in the form of a historicized political anecdote, allusions to historical themes. And life enters into historicized art in the form of serious tragedies between the actor (author) and the authorities. These acting tragedies, in turn, turn into unfunny jokes that demonstrate to intellectuals how serious life is.
The easing of government restrictions on the theatricalization of life usually also marks the advent of a “new time.” The intelligentsia in the “new era” is achieving its goal - a thaw, or perestroika, and the previously insurmountable boundaries between state and society are blurred. The blurring of the boundaries between the intelligentsia’s interpretation of history, historicized art and life, as well as the loss of art’s meaning, symbolize the beginning of yet another liberalization and the associated disappearance of historical landmarks. State leaders appear who, by necessity or by chance, accept one of the intelligentsia’s interpretations of history and, therefore, the role of its intellectual authors (for example, Khrushchev at the beginning of the “Thaw” or Gorbachev in 1987). In turn, intellectuals accept such a government functionary as one of their own (an intellectual), and happily feed from his table. The content of the life of intellectuals becomes attempts to embody certain episodes of their own or other people's history in political and economic practice.
In “new times,” such as the late 80s and early 90s of the twentieth century, on the stage of life-theater, since life itself becomes theater, types appear, the spectrum of which was determined by the artistic interpretation of the history of the country for a very long time, often centuries ago. The characters of Griboyedov, Ostrovsky, Chekhov, Gogol and other classics are embodied in modern politicians and economic agents. The similarity between social types of the transitional time and acting images has been noted more than once by those critics who reflect on their intelligence, restraining the temptation to enter the historical stage themselves and play one of the well-known classical roles.
However, politics and economics are not at all the areas of activity in which the social experience of intelligent people is significant. They are haunted by failures, the political performances they staged are disrupted with scandal, life does not obey historically verified stage models. Among the masses of intellectuals, questions arise about their historical role and place in the historical process. And only a few of them (Galkovsky, for example) dare to doubt the right to exist of the social group as a whole, and therefore the state. The performance of “freedom and democracy,” in which intellectuals find themselves involved with their whole souls, filled with patriotic images, usually ends tragically for the performers of the leading roles. As S.E. said Lec, “the absence of an end to the tragedy does not relieve its participants from the need to clear the hall.”
The dystopias that dominated the minds of intellectuals at the beginning of the “new era” are being replaced by new utopias of national statehood and world order, fair distribution and production, subordinated to the great ideas of social equality. It is a matter of chance and situation who will implement these ideas and how - communists, fascists or some other practitioners-interpreters of intellectual reflections of history.
Conventional scientific knowledge and methods of cognition are inaccessible to Russian intellectuals, since these are elements of a completely different, non-intelligentsia culture. Intellectuals use concepts, facts, empirical generalizations and diagnostic formulas taken out of the context of scientific research, including them in their theatrical concepts as “scientifically proven” prerequisites for activity. The use of scientific paraphernalia in a normal society is harmless, since it is neutralized by complex mechanisms of the scientific community and political practice, which verifies ideology for adequacy. But in an intelligent society, images from the theatrical history inevitably become the concepts of explaining and affirming itself ideologems and are not amenable to not verification, nor falsification. Marxism, Freudianism, Darwinism and other "Izms" are introduced into Russian culture as theatrical fragments of someone else's history, and not as the results of theoretical reflection of the experience of studying various aspects of life. Hence the scholasticity of intelligent scientific theoretization, which, however, can give serious scientific results in the border and newly formed areas of knowledge - as speculative anticipation of concepts that grew up in another social environment in solving purely practical problems.
The world of intellectuals is filled with personified images of historical and artistic works (or reduced topics of scientific research) and those relations between them, which are determined by the directory directors (in the broad sense of the word). Each “large” creator-artist is large, which introduces new images or new relationships between old images, thereby constructing an intelligent explaining theory. Ordinary relations in their intellectual circle in this logic become the realization of some archetypal (historical) relations. The generalization of the facts of personal communication serves the intellectual for the creation of a historically fondi -based theory, describing how society functions. Based on this kind of ideas about the existence and experimental data (all from personal experience), intellectuals are developing explaining and predicting theories.
Throughout the history of the intelligentsia, a group is reproduced, the members of which specialize in the construction of the all -uniting concepts of the universe. Within the framework of this group, we can distinguish pseudo -scientists - the creators of "general theories of all" (space, land, civilization and society in the whole and Russia in particular), and pseudo -writers, authors of personified logical schemes, stylized for art works. The creators of “General Theories of All” and pseudo -writers dramatize science, represent it to other intellectuals as the discovery of “secrets of nature and society”, and consider the research only as the “tragedy of cognition”.
Theories of this level are called ordinary. They act as conceptual schemes that determine the behavior of a socialized subject and make this behavior to the inclicable and predictable to the extent that it is trivial. The scope of ordinary theories for a person sharing them is in no limits, and no criteria for scientificity are not applicable. These theories are true to the extent that there are people who profess them.
From the variety of forms of a cognitive attitude to the world, intellectuals prefer reduction and examination. Some of the intellectuals have a tendency to reduce the historical and political reality significant for them to professionally familiar and use professional, sometimes very high -quality knowledge to explain important historical and political events from their point of view.
Another part of the intellectuals with cognitive intentions is prone to the so -called "Expertise". Expertise is understood as the ability to express an intelligent understanding of any question, problem, themes in their spatio-temporal, meaningful and moral characteristics. An intelligent expert, most often based on his judgments on journal and gas information, has an opinion about everything (including his ability to examine) and does not hesitate to express it in any circumstances. The political scene in the "new" times is full of experts and analysts competing with each other in the artistry of the presentation of their assessments and forecasts. The Presidential Council of the last call included, for example, some of the most telecenic experts.
There are outstanding intelligent people who combine all forms of research attitude to the world (directorial-conceptual, reductionist and expert). These are reductionists who consider themselves experts and realize their attitude to the world in the directorial activity - such as Sergey Kurginyan. Kurginyanov Mir is a scene in which, under the subsidiary of Kurginyan, a performance is unfolding, designed by a Kurginyan expert based on a reducer (Kurginyanov) model of a fragment of history. The creative and political failures of such comprehensively developed intellectuals only add to them ardor, ambitions and popularity in their native environment.
During the perestroika, the third generation of social directors is replaced. Perestroika was initiated by academics such as Aganbegyan, Shatalin, Arbatov and Zaslavskaya in roles of theorists, advisers and assistants to the first heads of the state. The baton was accepted by Popov, Sobchak, Hasbulatov and other professors - first as opponents of conservative forces in the leadership of the state and compilers of alternative programs for the transition to the market, and then as functionaries of a new order. Finally, in the Gaidar era, the important state affair of the construction of capitalism passed to the candidates of sciences, students of professors and academicians, who are in roles of experts, consultants, people's deputies and leaders of "independent research centers". They represent the last reserve of Soviet mentality, with a characteristic idea of the unlimited plasticity of social reality and the dominance of the economy over politics and culture.
Staying in the socialist space-time gave rise to alien to Western civilization, which is inevitably associated with the market, the perception and experience of the world. The mentality of citizens of the former USSR in the modern world is unique. At least three fundamental mythologems can be distinguished, which largely determine the thinking of policy experts in post-communist countries and determine the content of their recommendations to the leaders of new independent states: the mythologist of the observability of reality, the mythology of the constructiveness of reality and the mythology of the controllability of socio-economic processes.
The mythology of the objectiveness of the knowledge sets “the only true” ideas about the existence of socio-economic, political and even geographical realities. The state, according to mythological ideas, is a combination of ministries and departments, representative and control bodies, former union republics with regional and district division. Citizens of the state are exhaustively characterized by a set of socio-accounting features, such as gender, age, nationality, social origin and position in the administrative hierarchy, education and place of residence. The space of the state is sacred and the process of crossing its borders is furnished according to all the canons of a mythological society. Sacredity is also inherent in the concept of citizenship.
Any events should be localized by state mythology in a certain part of the state - in the territory or in the industry, and in the period of time, which is determined by the state. Significant events take place with men and women of the age and social status, who are acting, approved by the leadership of the state or reproducing cases earlier in the mythological past. Otherwise, the events are not considered that are held and are not recorded in the media and state reporting.
According to the mythology of constancy, social reality is a product of rational human actions and that is why it can be reformed, rebuilt and modernized. All natural and undeveloped in the construction of socialism should have been destroyed. The history of the socialist state can be considered as permanent construction of what is now being rebuilt and the destruction of what once existed in itself. State institutions and social relations under socialism are if you follow the mythology of constructure, something like a children's designer. They consist of separate parts, the arbitrary combination of which allows you to obtain any control system that is currently necessary at the moment. This design should work efficiently, and the criteria for effectiveness are set by the theories of intelligent analysts. In the event that the efficiency of the design is less than it follows from the theory, it is necessary to fix some of its elements: an administrative-territorial structure, production structure or people.
In order to correctly repair and adjust, it is necessary to draw up a program of this activity. In the course of perestroika, planning took the form of drawing up programs for the transition to a market economy and a democratic society - the reform process is planned. The mythology of the constructiveness of social reality has so deeply saturated consciousness that people born in this regime do not imagine any other activity except for the preparation of programs for the reconstruction of the economy and social structure in order to build communism or capitalism.
The mythologems of the objectivity and the constructiveness of reality are naturally supplemented by the mythologist control of socio-economic processes. According to a socialist reflective person, especially an economist, he considers it to be granted that there are some parameters of reality that can be rationally influenced. Specialist experts in building capitalism, who have become the will of fate by state officials, do not take into account the fact that the very possibility of managing is the property of social reality, achieved at the very high stages of its development.
The main content of their complex of representations is that the authorities have management tools that allow to achieve goals approved in party or state instances. The role of such a magical instrument is a managerial decision endowed, as befits sacred reality, by the highest meaning. During the years of perestroika, the decisions made are justified by references to the "experience of civilized countries", in which those operations that are provided for in the decisions were more or less successfully successfully. So, references to the experience of Chile, Poland and South Korea became the usual place in the works of those economists and politicians who began to program the transition to the market and democracy.
The construction of market democracy is furnished according to all the rules of a mythological society. Government summer cottages near Moscow have been turned into a kind of headquarters for developing programs for transforming socialism into capitalism. Trusted economists and analysts in the situation of strictest secrecy under armed protection are developing plans for measures and sequence of managerial actions, which are later becoming the subject of the most severe political struggle. Specially selected groups of advisers are allowed to use classified state reporting and statistical information, to which they were not previously allowed. They solemnly set the task of writing the text of the solution that will be announced by one of the heads of the state at the next ritual event.
Against this background, the ideology of market reforms is naughty by the logical and practical development of a typically intelligent approach to reality. The content of the mythology has changed, but their essence remained unchanged. The troubles of the state come down to the fact that someone and once made an incorrect decision with the terrible consequences, which now have to mock citizens of the state. It is believed that the problems of the current stage are to make another, this time the right and only right decision.
In the "layer" of the intelligentsia, three strata can be distinguished: actors (writers, in general - authors), critics and consumers (spectators, readers). Some intellectuals write (put, remove), others read-examine (consume), others criticize the first, hoping that they will be understood by the second. The intelligent reader (viewer, listener) is included in the direct perception of the book (production, film), and in their critical understanding, and does not perceive the text (in the broad sense of this concept) outside his critical interpretation. Historical engagement is an obligatory attribute of intellectual creativity and can be introduced into it as an author and a critic, naturally in a form available for perception by ordinary intellectuals - consumers.
The relationship between the reader (viewer), the writer (author) and the critic constituted and compose the content of intellectual life. These relations, from my point of view, make up the internal structure of intelligence, and only people included in this system are considered intelligent.
For the formal explication of the structure of intelligence, it is necessary to introduce an idea of the copyright, critical and consumer activities and relevant forms of activity. Relations between them can be represented by a formal structure (fan matrix Fig. 1), in which the types of intellectual activity are carried out on the lines, and the types of activity of the same form of activity are the same. The intersection of the rows of the same name and columns is identified with authors, critics and consumers - ideal types that set the basic structure of the intelligence space, while the intersections of different lines and columns are identified with other types of intellectuals.
A full (relatively generating matrix relationship) The list of types of intellectuals is set by Fig. 1
| forms activities levels | creative | Critical | Consumer |
| creative | AUTHORS | Reflecting authors | Self -sufficient authors |
| critical | Publicers | Critics | professional Critics |
| consumer | activists creative amateur performances | Elitarian Readers, spectators | Consumers (readers, Spectators) |
The authors in the context of this work mean those intellectuals whose works become the subject of interest of critics, also belonging to the space of intelligence. The authors who have not become the subject of interest of critics remain outside the described space (the so -called "forgotten authors", the subject of the special interest of intelligent interpreters of history), as well as those critics who are interested in "non -intellectual" authors. In order to become authors, it is necessary to contrast the state, suffer from it, become the subject of discussion and condemnation by the state, and at the same time present the results of the author’s reflection of relations with the state in an artistic form. At the same time, it is not at all necessary that the results of creativity have some kind of artistic value. They should look so that they can be interpreted (critically represented) as a new representation of relations between the state and society for the state paradigm, as a violation of canons and overcoming state censorship (8). Both Solzhenitsyn and Bondarev (at the beginning of his career) in this sense are the authors, but G. Markov and P. Proskurin do not fall into the authors in mind.
Critics are understood as intellectuals specializing in the representation of authors as oppositionists and introducing new ideas and topics into the space of intelligence regarding the relations between the state and society and the role of the intelligentsia itself in these relations. The estate of critics does not include official state critics specializing in the design of state prohibitions and in censorship. The latter are considered non -intelligent.
Consumers are understood as those intellectuals who passively perceive the results of the work of the authors and their critical interpretations. These are readers of thick magazines, theater regulars, film amateurs, etc.
The most significant elements of the structure of this space are classic authors, their critics are interpreters and their consumers, readers are spectators. Acquaintance with the "classic" is mandatory for the urge to intelligentsia, and the critical interpretation and interpretation of the work of classical authors in relation to modernity has been and remains the content of the work of many modern intelligent authors. There are no, as it seems, a writer, playwright or director, who did not face off his own paraphrase Ostrovsky, Chekhov, Gogol or some other classic. Классика - вечно живые произведения избранных авторов - в понимании интеллигенции является живой историей и именно благодаря классике осуществляется связь между прошлым и настоящим.
Расмотрим теперь не диагональные элементы рис.1 структуры интеллигентского пространства. Отношение между творческим уровнем деятельности и критической формой деятельности отождествляется с "рефлектирующими авторами", то есть теми интеллигентами-авторами, которые считают своим долгом разьяснить читающей (смотрящей) публике свои позиции относительно героев своих произведений. Тем самым авторы выступают в роли критиков собственного творчества. Читатели "Литературной газеты" не реже раза в неделю имеют возможность ознакомиться с авторской интерпретацией собственного текста одним из представителей этого типа.
Отношение между творческим уровнем деятельности и потребительской формой деятельности отождествляется с типом "самодостаточных авторов", то есть теми интеллигентами-авторами, которые считают свои произведения "высшей и последней" стадией художественного творчества, а факт своего существования - историческим событием. Рестораны Домов творчества заполнены этими непризнанными гениями, утверждающими в застолье свою исключительность.
Отношение между критическим уровнем деятельности и творческой формой деятельности интерпретируется как тип "публицисты", то есть такие критики, продукция которых становится авторскими произведениеми. Такие публицисты, как В. Лакшин, А. Стреляный или А. Лебедев известны всем интеллигентам.
Отношения между критическим уровнем деятельности и потребительской формой деятельности интерпретируется как тип "профессиональные критики", под которыми понимаются критики, сделавшие себе имя текущей журнальной публицистикой и рефлексией относительно того, что должны читать рядовые интеллигенты-потребители. Модельный современный пример - Наталья Иванова, профессиональный популяризатор своих любимых и нелюбимых авторов.
Отношения между потребительским уровнем деятельности и творческой формой деятельности интерпретируются как тип "активисты творческой самодеятельности", то есть потребители, выступающие в роли самодеятельных авторов. Б. Окуджава и Ю. Ким в начале своей карьеры достаточно в этом смысле типичны. Творческая самодеятельность является обязательным атрибутом этого типа интеллигентности.
Отношения между потребительским уровнем деятельности и критической формой деятельности интерпретируется как тип "элитарные потребители", то есть такие читатели и зрители, которые находятся в критической коммуникации с авторами и критиками или ищут пути для такой коммуникации, публично высказывая критические оценки авторских произведений. Почта толстых журналов в свое время была переполнена письмами элитарных потребителей.
В целом пространство интеллигенции делится диагональными элементами (АВТОРАМИ, КРИТИКАМИ, ПОТРЕБИТЕЛЯМИ) на две функционально различные части - наддиагональную и поддиагональную. Наддиагональная часть может быть названа творчески - союзной, поскольку отношения между составляющими ее элементами (рефлектирующими авторами, самодостаточными авторами и профессиональными критиками) развиваются в основном в рамках Союзов писателей, кинематографистов, театральных деятелей, и пр. Поддиагональная часть, представленная отношениями между публицистами, самодеятельными авторами и элитарными потребителями может быть названа артистическо-диссидентской, так как противостоит тому, что происходит в государственных творческих союзах.
Кроме основного конфликта между интеллигенцией и государством, развивающегося в основном в русле проблем, связанных с разрешением или запретом на художественную экспликацию тех или иных моментов российской истории, существуют конфликты внутри интеллигенции. Эти конфликты разноплановы и разноуровневы, однако определяются общей структурой интеллигентского пространства и могут быть описаны в терминах схемы рис.1.
В частности, может быть выделен конфликт между творчески-союзной и артистически-диссидентской частями интеллигенции (то есть между поддиагональными и наддиагональными типами), выражающийся в презрении союзно-творческой интеллигенции к "босоте и богеме", и подспудном желании последних "перейти диагональ" и получить к доступ к благам, распределяемых среди членов творческих союзов.
Внутренняя конфликтность "творчески-союзной" интеллигенции общеизвестна. В первую очередь она связана со стремлением рефлектирующих авторов, самодостаточных авторов и профессиональных критиков занять места на диагонали, стать классиками - АВТОРАМИ и КРИТИКАМИ и тем самым войти в историю.
Третий конфликт связан с выделенным положением публицистов и рефлектирующих авторов и их противопоставлением основной массе интеллигентов-потребителей. Последние апеллируют к АВТОРАМ и КРИТИКАМ - классикам (живым и мертвым), утверждая их приоритет в искусной историзации жизни. Публицисты и рефлектирующие авторы, напротив, считают свои интерпретации истории и современности по меньшей мере столь же адекватными, как и классические.
Внутренняя динамика этих конфликтов в спокойные времена приводит к воспроизведению интеллигенции как среды обитания интеллигентов: "босота и богема" социализируется, ее принимают в творческие союзы, члены творческих союзов становятся при жизни КЛАССИКАМИ, а многочисленные потребители привыкают к тем реалиями, которые трудами рефлектирующих авторов и публицистов вводятся в интеллигентскую онтологию. Поддиагональные типы плавно перетекают в наддиагональные, освобождая функциональные места для нового поколения интеллигентов, которое к концу жизни ждет таже судьба.
Но так бывает только в спокойные времена. При либерализациях и перестройках изменяется структура пространства интеллигентности. Это в первую очередь проявляется в потере своего значения структурообразующей диагональю. Классика, ее интерпретаторы и почитатели уходят в социальное небытие, на периферию интеллигентского пространства и ранее единое пространство интеллигентских смыслов распадается на совокупность мало связанных между собой подпространств - сект (9), формально подобных изначальному. Этот процесс можно отобразить в виде схемы рис.2
| forms activities levels | творческо- критическая | критико- потребительская | творческо- потребительская |
| творческо- critical | NEW AUTHORS | ||
| критико- consumer | NEW КРИТИКИ | ||
| творческо- consumer | NEW ПОТРЕБИТЕЛИ |
При формировании сектантского пространства из основного пространства интеллигентности вычленяются попарно симметричные относительно диагонали типы (рефлектирующие авторы и публицисты, самодостаточные авторы и активисты творческой самодеятельности, профессиональные критики и элитарные потребители). При этом различия между типами в каждой паре становятся несущественными (10), а отношения внутри пары становятся особой новой реальностью, расчленяемую на уровни деятельности и формы деятельности - аналогично веерной матрице рис.1. Рефлектирующие авторы и публицисты формируют творческо-критический уровень деятельности и соответствующую форму деятельности, в то время как самодостаточные и самодеятельные авторы формируют творческого-потребительский уровень и форму деятельности. Пересечение одноименных форм и уровней деятельности отождествляется с типами " НОВЫЕ АВТОРЫ", "НОВЫЕ КРИТИКИ" и "НОВЫЕ ПОТРЕБИТЕЛИ", выпоняющими роль структурообрующей диагонали сектантского пространства, новой классики.
В отличие от основного и единого интеллигентского пространства (рис.1), недиагональная структура сектантских пространств (рис.2) пуста, в ней нет типов, представляющих "широкую публику". Но зато сект очень много. В качестве примеров сект можно привести "Митьков" как АВТОРОВ, их немногочисленных КРИТИКОВ и столь же немногочисленных почитателей, или "Приговцев", у коих три-четыре классика-АВТОРА, десяток критиков и несколько сотен читателей-ПОТРЕБИТЕЛЕЙ.
После окончания очередной перестройки структура интеллигентского пространства восстанавливается, а ряды классиков пополняются за счет включения в их число НОВЫХ АВТОРОВ и НОВЫХ КРИТИКОВ из разных сект. Так в тридцатые годы ХХ века в число классиков попали Маяковский, Есенин и Шкловский.
Сейчас в очередной раз распалось основное интеллигентское пространство, исчезли государственные творческие союзы. Их место заняли многочисленные секты - обьединения (писательские, кинематографистов, художников), члены которых интегрируются согласно общей для них художественной интерпретации истории. "Поддиагональные" авторы, критики и потребители вошли в состав новых творческих обьединений. Толстые журналы, задававшие основные модальности и темы интеллигентской рефлексии, практически прекратили свое существование, а их бывшие читатели и почитатели занялись бизнесом или политикой. Однако еще ничего не кончено.
Интеллигенция и социально однородное государство неотделимы. Для интеллигенции как группы смертельно опасно отчуждение экономики от политики и формирование стратифицированного по экономическим признакам общества. Изменение отношений между государством и обществом при благоприятном (нетоталитарном, демократическом) исходе приведет к исчезновению интеллигенции. Для самосохранения интеллигенция должна тем или иным способом стимулировать воспроизведение социально-однородного (сословного, кастового, классового или кланового) государства в форме Российской империи, СССР или какой-то другой. Если ей это удастся, то будущее интеллигенции обеспечено. В этом смысле показательно поведение многих интеллигентов в октябре 1993 года, сразу после вооруженного разгона российского парламента. Одни из них мгновенно начали самоорганизовываться в привычные по доперестроечным временам диссидентские структуры, настраиваясь на противостояние замаячившей было тени сильного государства, и так обрели потерянную основу своего существования. Другие, напротив, начали воспевать "во славу Великой России" и занялись теоретическим обоснованием и оправданием "сильной президентской власти" и ее актуальных и потенциальных кровопролитных действий. Действия и тех, и других были направлены на воспроизведение привычных отношений между государством и обществом и, следовательно, на воспроизведение интеллигенции.
Если нарождающиеся сейчас в России или наследующих ей социально-экономических квазигосударственных структурах новые социальные группы преодолеют барьер в отношениях между государством и обществом, то интеллигенция исчезнет, освободив место естественному и экономически детерминированному разделению занятий. Историки займутся изучением истории, писатели и художники начнут творить сообразно требованиям соответствующих рынков, ученые займутся наукой.
Напротив, возникшее на остатках СССР сильное государство, сумевшее преодолеть экономическую катастрофу, регионализацию и межэтнические конфликты ради цели сохранения самого себя как сверхдержавы, которое возьмет на себя заботу о науке, культуре, образовании, здравоохранении и прочих субстратах произрастания интеллигенции - создаст условия для возрождения великой отечественной интеллигентской культуры и порожденного той искусства.
Top of page
© Печатное издание - "Век ХХ и мир", 1994. © Электронная публикация - Русский Журнал , 1997
Anthologies. Limits of power. # 1.
Simon Kordonsky. Интеллигенция в роли национальной интеллектуальной элиты.
http://old.russ.ru/antolog/predely/1/kord.htm