Grigory Pomerantz to Oleg Dusaev

100 years have passed since the birth of Grigory Solomonovich Pomerants (1918–2013). The outstanding philosopher and culturologist devoted many years to the study of the phenomenon of the intelligentsia. What is the intelligentsia in Russia? How were its relations with the authorities built and are being built? — in an interview with The New Times

The word "intelligentsia" was called at the end of the 18th century a layer of enlightened people, in contrast to the unenlightened. I came across a German Intelligenzzeitung from 1800. Obviously it was about the intellectual elite. In this sense, the word was kept at the beginning of the 19th century. For example, Dahl gives an example: "Gather all the intelligentsia," one secular lady says to another. It was not about the social stratum, but about the most enlightened stratum in Russia - the nobility. The word "intelligentsia" acquired its modern meaning in Russia after the reforms of Alexander II, when a raznochinets went to university. And a fusion of liberal intelligentsia and more or less enlightened raznochintsy was formed. From the nobility, it inherited a disdain for huckstering, and from the commoners - democracy. The combination of remoteness from popular practice and, at the same time, a democratic spirit was characteristic of the Russian intelligentsia. A significant part of Chekhov's heroes is the intelligentsia. All this formed into one intelligentsia society, remarkable for the fact that its enlightenment was Western. Therefore, one of the definitions that I gave to the intelligentsia is the Western educated layer in an insufficiently Europeanized or completely non-Europeanized country, cut off by its education from the people who did not understand and did not know all these ideas that the intelligentsia calls.

NT: Why did the intellectual become associated with the image of a frightened man in a hat and glasses?

After the revolution, what happened to Don Quixote, who, with his enthusiasm, freed the convicts, and the convicts began to throw stones at him. Approximately the same was the fate of the Russian intelligentsia. In the course of the revolution, the Russian intelligentsia realized that its existence was organically connected with the tsarist state, against which it constantly opposed and criticized it, and made opposition speeches.

NT: Why did the Russian intelligentsia "fell" under power?

Who lay down? The best part of the intelligentsia either fell under the Red Terror or emigrated abroad. And those who remained in Russia either caved in, like Losev, or fell into the next wave of terror. I saw the waves of Stalinist terror. But the Red Terror also severely battered the intelligentsia. Somewhere there is a telegram from Lenin that it is necessary to shoot either 300 or 500 professors. However, Lenin was not a sadist. He proceeded from the fact that by such methods a revolution is being made that will bring the general good. He was a fanatic of his idea. And what he did was pretty scary. And Stalin, moreover, was still paranoid and sadistic and destroyed people much more than was necessary for approval.

NT: The phrase is attributed to Lenin that the intelligentsia is not the brain of the nation, but shit.

I think he really could say that. But at the same time, he himself was a typical representative of the Russian intelligentsia, and became a functionary of the new revolutionary bureaucracy. The transition of a certain part of the intelligentsia to the revolutionary bureaucracy created such a figure as Lenin, who himself turned the intelligentsia into shit. Lenin called every person of mental labor an intellectual, resolutely rejecting a moral characterization. Whereas Turgenev's article "Hamlet and Don Quixote", written in the middle of the 19th century, already outlined the program by which the then emerging intelligentsia lived. And then those who were not destroyed began to adapt, and adapted, and continue, as they say now, to bend when they are properly pressed.

NT: Can we compare the Russian intelligentsia's love for power now with the situation in the 1920s and 1930s?

I was a boy then, but I saw people of that era. A certain part of the intelligentsia really adhered to Smenovekhov's guidelines. That is, she counted on the fact that the Bolsheviks, having seized power, under the influence of events, would inevitably begin to build some kind of original Russia, opposite to the West. In a word, there were some currents of the intelligentsia that were carried away by this. But to say that all the intelligentsia adored the authorities in the 1920s - oh, I can’t. Otherwise, they would not have imprisoned her, poor thing. And from the 30th year they planted very heavily. And since 1928, when there was a trial of "saboteurs" in the city of Shakhty, there were continuous trials against engineer-saboteurs and then against everyone who smuggled in - I don't remember what - idealism or something like that. There was a whole company against the intelligentsia. And when I finally got to the Institute of History, Philosophy and Literature in 1935, the professorship had already been all cleaned and ironed out, so I don’t know, I don’t know to say that the intelligentsia fell in love with Bolshevism. Does a dog like to be beaten with a stick?

NT: Is there an intelligentsia now?

I have met many people in whom I see the best traits of an intellectual. But I don't know if we can talk about them as a whole layer. I prefer to use the term "creative minority". What is happening around me makes me refrain from using the word "intelligentsia", because it is not clear whether there will be a direct continuation of the traditions of the best part of the Russian intelligentsia, or whether this is a fact of the past, and some new words must be found. I see just people - often completely disinterested - who strive for what Dostoevsky called "a highly developed personality." He said that a highly developed personality, fully confident in its right to be a personality, not experiencing any fear for itself, cannot find any more use for itself than to give itself all to everyone, so that others would be just as full and happy personalities. This is the law of nature. This is what a normal person is drawn to. But there is one catch: there should not be at least a drop of "ego" - a drop of a small "I" that turns people into selfishness. Here is roughly what Dostoevsky wrote 150 years ago in Winter Notes on Summer Impressions. This characteristic roughly corresponds to what I myself aspire to and what I want to support.

DOSSIER

Grigory Pomerants is a philosopher, essayist, critic, culturologist. Born in Vilno (Vilnius) on March 13, 1918. Graduated from the Institute of History, Philosophy and Literature (IFLI). Member of the Great Patriotic War, went from Stalingrad to Berlin, was wounded twice, has awards. In 1946, he was expelled from the CPSU (b) for "anti-party statements." In 1949 he was arrested on charges of anti-Soviet activities, convicted, a prisoner of Kargopollag; after Stalin's death (1953) he was released and rehabilitated (1956). He worked as a teacher at the Tula Pedagogical Institute (1940–1941), at the Soyuzenergomontazh trust, as a kiosk at Soyuzpechat (1946–1949), as a teacher in a rural school (1953–1956), as a bibliographer at the Library of Foreign Literature and the Department of Asian and African Countries of the FBON of the USSR Academy of Sciences . Published in Samizdat and Tamizdat (in the Soviet press since 1976 it was banned). Author of the books “Openness to the Abyss. Meetings with Dostoevsky”, “Lectures on the Philosophy of History”, “Gathering Oneself”, “Out of the Trance”, “Images of the Eternal”, “Great Religions of the World”, “Notes of the Ugly Duckling” and others.

First published in NT #11, March 17, 2008