Professor, hate it slowness

Sociologist Viktor Vakhstein - about how the war is divided by intellectuals

Having left Russia accuse the remaining collaborations. The remaining left - in cowardice. Both of them are inclined to assign responsibility for the war on as many people as possible - according to the dean of the faculty of social sciences Shaninka and the former editor -in -chief of the magazine "Sociology of power" Viktor Vakhstein. At the request of the Cold, he analyzed academic tapes on social networks and came to sad conclusions.

In order not to miss the main materials of the "cold", subscribe to our Instagram and telegram .

In recent months, my Facebook tape slowly mutated into the bizarre hybrid of the newspaper Pravda and Fyolkisha Beobakhter of the 1939 model. Algorithms helpfully hid the recipes of new dishes, photographs of relatives, notes of unfamiliar freeds, leaving only posts of colleagues - people burdened with scientific degrees and active civil position. They show her, however, in a very peculiar way.

Here, one of my long-standing student writes shortly after the declaration of mobilization: “I tried to keep something, I waited for this madness to end, but now there is no way back. I am leaving, leaving everything that is dear to me here. ”

“Where have you been the last six months, cattle? Did you walk around the boulevards? Enjoyed Sobyaninskaya Moscow, creature? " - The doctor of political sciences, professor, author of several intellectual bestseller is politely interested in the comments.

“I do not want to give moral assessments,” the doctor of philosophy begins his post, “but everyone who remained in Russia should be considered accomplices in war crimes. And to act with them, respectively. If they do not resist, then they must bear responsibility for this. ” He is warmly supported by a candidate of sociological sciences: “They are led like cattle for slaughter. So, they do not deserve anything else. ”

“If not a few thousands of, but at least tens of thousands, nothing would have happened. The humility of this people is the cause of all its misfortunes, ”the famous public intellectual echoes.

Then a curious discussion unfolds, in which the historian and biologist are faced. The historian believes that the “unquestioning slave of these animals” is the result of the historically established “slave mentality”. After all, "every prisoner in the zone in the shower is a woven." The biologist, on the other hand, insists on another explanatory model: the genetic degradation of the Russian population and artificial negative selection, which led to the physical degeneration of Russians. Both are sure that they say on behalf of their science. “Why don't you like“ humility ”? - The philologist is connected. - This is a completely scientific term. It is clear that some peoples are more humble to their authorities than others. ”

Strictly speaking, a reason for such exercises in the “psychology of peoples” could be anything: Alla Pugacheva’s statement (this imperial bastard writes about “our boys”!), The murder of Daria Dugin Oy (these pseudo -Christian pacifists refuse to rejoice in the death of the propaganda!) Or even the Masyani series (racists, just racists!).

Comments of graduate students to the posts of their supervisor - a separate genre:

“Professor, so we hate X for the fact that he is an imperial, or for the fact that he is a cowardly serf? I do not have time, hate it, please, please. "

I would call such a cascading collapse “divided”, but, alas, this concept is now too - fuel in the fire of collective indignation. From the accusation of “dehumanization”, they usually begin the persecution of those who “humanizing executioners, automatically divide their victims.” Therefore, I - in the spirit of time - will call it a fragmentation. (I am sure a philologist will be able to prove the scientificity of this term.)

The first victim of any war is the idea of ​​human dignity. It is too universalist, too abstract, too universal. She can’t survive under the onslaught of the concepts much more in demand by the war: “people”, “mentality”, “society”, “culture”, “nation” (many colleagues are reinsured and complemented by the word “nation” by the “civilian” adjective; however, the majority is no longer bothering). For many years I had a absurd illusion that representatives of the academic world in some magical way are vaccinated from fragmentation. The study of philosophical texts, immersion in historical documents, preserving the research position, reading classical literature, finally. Well, the doctor of philosophy cannot for years to analyze with students the evolution of ethical doctrines from Aristotle to the Enlightenment, and then demand a demonstrative execution of prisoners of war, "so that more people run!"

Yes, maybe, of course.

Working in the Balkans, I was surprised to find that the percentage of people with scientific degrees in the lists of war criminals is much higher than the national average. At the age of 25, Voislav Sheshel defended his dissertation on the topic “The political essence of militarism and fascism”, becoming the youngest Yugoslav Doctor of Sciences, and then taught a year in Michigan. “We are not fascists, we are just chauvinists who hate the Croats,” he said in an interview. Bilyana Plashich was the dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics of the University of Sarayev, Fulbright scholarship and more than 100 biology scientific works. She said that ethnic cleaning organized by her orders is not just a military necessity, but a “natural (natural) phenomenon”. Then the explanation of the Hobsbaum seemed to me working: universities were always at the forefront of nationalism. But no, apparently, the point is not at all in nationalism.

Colleagues to whom I wrote personal messages with a question (the essence of which comes down to the old formula: “Are you completely fucking there?”) Drived two camps. There are those for whom this is a conscious choice. After all, "human dignity is not law, but a privilege." Ethical universalism is only a cover for imperial ideology. Total confrontation requires decisive generalizations. But the majority referred to the circumstances: "After the buch and raisins, you cannot demand sanity from me." Behind this logic is an old legal idea of ​​provocation.

Since the middle of the 19th century, English judges have used two ideal types: “Normal person” and “Reasonable person” to determine the provocation. Provocation is an event after which any normal person ceases to be reasonable, that is, loses control of his own words and actions. So, he cannot be imputed - he is temporarily insane. So I can’t tell a colleague who had just crossed out from the list of representatives of the human race of all owners of the Russian passport, “start with yourself”. Because he literally began with himself. Recognition of one's own insanity is the key to successful disconnection. And saturated expert discussion on Facebook.

The author’s opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the editorial office.