The Ideological Battles of the 1920-30s
OLGA NESM ELOVA
The main object o f my research for the last ten years has been the investigation of the key points of the development of the US 20th- century prose reception by Russian scholars from the early Soviet period to post-Soviet times.
Two periods can be distinguished in this process. The first one is the foundation o f the Soviet American Literary Studies in the 1920—
30s. The main ideological and literary conflict originated in this early period. Young Soviet critics treated the idea of Americanism very contradictorily. On the one hand there was revolutionary nihilism towards everything American; on the other there was an often sub
conscious interest in and admiration for the young energy revealed in the US literary art. In this case the thing which is rather important is the perception of not only the artistic peculiarities of the US literary process, but the specific American culture in general, the American way o f life and mentality by the young Soviet critics. The term
‘Americanism’ was used in the 1920-30s to define this notion.
The major aspects here are: the sociological method in Russian literary criticism; the phenomenon of ‘the proletarian literature’ and its followers; racial conflict in the US literature through the eyes of Soviet critics; polemics between Soviet Marxist scholars and their American colleagues.
The problems o f the second period (after World War II) have become more related to art than ideology. This is the problem of art method and different trends in the US literature. We analyze how Russian scholars treated the correlation of realism — modernism —
postmodernism; the romantic tradition in the 20th-century literature;
the naturalistic tendencies; the nonfiction tradition and its interaction with the epic and lyrical prose; the regional, ethnic, and racial peculiarities of the US 20л-сепШгу literature.
In spite of the fact that the second period is more interesting and serious in the perception and estimation o f the literary process in the USA in the 20th century, the initial stage deserves our special attention, as the tendencies which had appeared there were continued later by literary critics and scholars.
The initial stage of American Studies in the field o f literary studies and literary criticism in Russia, including the turn o f the 19th and 20th centuries and the first revolutionary years, depends on the social stereotypes of perception o f America and the American culture directly. At the given stage many pieces of American prose o f the very beginning of new 20th century had not yet become the object of analysis. In fact, not the art potential o f the actual American literature was estimated, but the specificity and characteristic features o f the American nation, its national character, and spiritual life.
One of the first problems designated in Russian criticism at the turn of the century that was reflected in the Soviet criticism in the 1920—30s was the problem o f the “autonomy” o f American literature.
It was usual to speak about the unity o f English and American litera
tures and cultures, on the one hand, and about the artistic weakness and inferiority o f American literature in comparison with the Euro
pean one on the other hand. So, in The General H istory o f Literature (1895) one and the same chapter presented the review o f both English and American literature. Thirty-five pages were devoted to English literature and only ten to American. The section about American literature began with the aprioristic submission o f it to the English one: “There is no use for North Americans to strive for full indepen
dence and isolation from England, especially in literature and art.
Thanks to the unity o f their origins, language, etc., North American literature will remain a kind o f a branch o f the English one for a long time.” A thoughtful analysis o f the modem products followed and the final pages contained a very positive review o f American literature contradicting the generally negative evaluation. Speaking about a new figure in American literature — F. Bret Harte, the author emphasized his achievements: “ Someone says he brings a typical American unity of tragic element and humor into the world literature. Others tell about
140 NESM ELOVA
the connection o f fictional and historical truth. He has already formed his school and, maybe, has already given a start for American litera
ture and its complete separation from English literature.” (Всеобщая история литературы 1895: 965,974)'
The main characteristic feature of the first works in the field of American Studies was its reference to sociology. And as a result there were discussions about the features of the American national cha
racter, about the interrelations and misunderstanding between the American and Russian national specific.
In 1895 P. Tverskoy’s big detailed review Modern Fiction in the American Periodicals was published in Vestnik Evropi (Bulletin of Europe). The pro-American author made some curious statements concerning the specificity of American literature in general, and its differences from English literature, and the relations between ‘publi
cism ’ and fiction in English-speaking literatures in his preface to the review. P. Tverskoj made interesting observations about the absence or, more likely, the overcoming of tendentiousness in the works of American writers: “American literary magazines do not have such a thing as the ‘trend’ in Russian. ... Neither journals nor writers have it.
In Russia the writer can be a liberal, or a ‘krepostnik’ (landlord), or a conservative, an indifferent person, and etc. In America there is nothing similar to this, and consequently the challenge for a fiction writer is easier on the one hand, and more difficult on the other. It is impossible to pretend and to rely on the color of personal belief.”
(Тверской 1895: 533-534)2
The reaction to P. Tverskoy’s article followed immediately. Before the last issues with translations of short stories were released, an anonymous author had published very malicious but rather sensible and truthful remarks in the Literary Notes column of the Russkiy
' Later in the analogous issue (The History o f Western Literature 1914) the section American Literature written by Z. Vengerova, was expanded, and consisted o f forty pages. But the analysis included only the 19th century literature and was ended with the name o f H. Beecher Stowe. There is one more indirect proof o f indifference toward American literature. The review, probably written by Z. Vengerova as well, was devoted to the book about English and American novel. But it touched only English novels, American works were ignored. (Венгерова 1895)
The article in ##8-11 had attachments which included Russian translations o f the eight short stories, P. Tverskoy presented in his review.
Vestnik (Russian Bulletin). They reached their target. These artistically weak short stories o f US writers became a good reason to blame P.
Tverskoy for his antipatriotic position: “The type of our indifferent cosmopolitan is too well-know and widespread. He doesn’t care about where to live, and doesn’t have any connection with his native place, religion and family traditions.” And then about American literature as well: “Actually, only Bret Harte is known in our country, un
fortunately in bad translations. And except his works nothing out
standing has appeared in the modem American fiction.” (Русский вестник 1895: 311,313)
Indirectly this discussion led to the problem o f the definition of such notions as ‘Americanism’, ‘the American way o f life’. The researchers had to address literature again to find definitions. In an article dating back to 1914 with a telling title The Two Ways to A ccept the World (it is necessary to mention, that the problem under analysis was American and European mentalities, but not ideological contra
dictions between Russia and the USA). S. Volsky gave an example of the work of three writers — W. Whitman, J. London and O. Henry to illustrate the American national character. It is necessary to mention that the critic foresaw the perception of these authors. And his observations in the field of national and social psychology are worth mentioning as well. He emphasized the characteristic features of American literature: realism , common sense and worshipping the human will. Speaking about J. London, the critic wrote about the primitiveness o f the feelings o f his characters. He pointed out that even the technique o f O. Henry’s stories is quite different from the European, and the active position o f the characters is shown even in the most lyrical and melodramatic situations. “You discover an absolutely new world where the human will, ideas and feelings are put into combinations, either unknown, or unacceptable in old Europe ...
The world as a concept or problem means nothing. But the world as an act or gesture is everything. This is the perception o f the world which is typical of the person on that side of the ocean, despite his views, profession and race.” (Вольский 1914: 69. 71, 73-74, 77, 78) This article differed from others in its absence of aprioristic negative
3 In this case, w e think, the term “realism” implied exactness o f the docu
mentary facts typical for the naturalistic method. It also presents national peculiarity o f the literature o f the USA, which became more vivid at the beginning o f the 20th century during the period o f muckrakers.
142 NESM ELOVA
estimations, objectiveness, ascertaining of distinctions between natio
nal literatures and cultures deprived of anti-American and predo
minantly Russian moods.
In the first post-revolutionary years the given problem also oc
cupied the critics’ minds. It limited the borders of the ideological conflict. Comparing and finding out similarities and differences between Russian and American literatures aroused a special interest.
The most excited questions were: What causes such a great interest in America in the Russians? What are the advantages o f such a quickly developing country? What is ‘Americanism’ as a phenomenon and an ideological concept? It is interesting to compare two simultaneous responses to all these problems given by the opposite sides. They continued the pre-revolutionary discussions. In 1922 the almanac Zapad (West) published the work American Impressions written by V.
Krimov, the former editor o f the Petrograd magazine who lived in Berlin. In the editorial foreword he was characterized as a “clever and talented” journalist. The essay about America was included in a series o f travelling notes o f the author. A special section was devoted to the US literature. V. Krimov repeated the already widely known ideas about worshiping the dollar and its influence on literature, the yellow press, the popularity o f cheap pocket novels, etc. But the conclusion was rather unexpected, not without irony, but at the same time with a big share o f seriousness. “Read one hundred novels — you’ll find the same thing everywhere: indispensable well-being, the happy end, the celebration o f virtue and punished vice. This is a kind of national up
bringing. Perhaps, it is really better. How far have we gone with our Dostoevschina and Chekhovschina (terms formed from the names of Dostoevski and Chekhov, meaning everything typical or similar to their works and views — O.N.)? They are gloomy, dull and grey. And here we always have a happy end and high and healthy spirit.”
(Крымов 1922: 31) The extremely left vision of the problem was given in the pages o f magazine LeF. The ideological approach to the problems of culture was given almost without references to any examples from art. M. Levidov attacked the stereotypes in the percep
tion of the problem o f ‘Americanism’ with all the force of revolutio
nary passion. The style and language o f the journalistic note was rather curious: “ ... And they admire this Americanism. Intellectual whiners admire it. Powerful force is impressive to them as well as the muscularity of the soul (in fact, created by imagination only). And
intellectual mystics curse it. The living spirit is killed. The soul is crucified on the crosswise advertising board for footwear. Love occurs in the lift. Flowers o f life are crushed by a mechanical boot. American danger is coming like some mental contagious disease. Here is destruction. The earth is degenerating.” It is necessary to note that, despite such high-flown vocabulary, teasing style and affectation, the contradiction in the perception of ‘Americanism’ was rather precisely caught by the Soviet public thought. Nevertheless some literary facts appeared at the end o f the article. These were some references to M.
Cawly’s story and S. Lewis’s novel Babbitt. But the conclusion turned out to be much weaker than the article as a whole. It was also coloured by the revolutionary ideology: “But where is the person made of muscles, will and reason? He is being treated — not only for indi
gestion, but also for neurasthenia. Muscles? No, just old rags. Will?
No, this is only rachitic aspiration. Reason? No, a blind and cowardly instinct. It is not only a tragic farce of Americanism. This is a tragic farce of all the capitalist culture.” (Левидов 1923: 45, 46)
These ideas created a platform for forming the so-called Soviet American Studies in literature in the first decade after the Revolution.
Despite the constantly declared break not only with the old literature and art, but also with the literary and art critics, Soviet American Studies apprehended and developed the ideas that had been formed by science and criticism at the turn o f the 19th and 20th centuries. Firstly, there is a kind o f duality towards the USA in general, including its culture: admiration and enthusiasm on the one hand, indignation and irritation on the other. Secondly, an emphasis on the interaction between literary and social problems when studying the USA. This led to the predomination o f the sociological method in Soviet American Studies in the 1920s and 30s. N. Travushkin has emphasized this prominent feature o f pre-revolutionary literary criticism: “The estima
tions of works o f foreign fiction could be more sociological. The work of the foreign author was not fully comprehended. Usually at least a part of the content (even without taking into consideration any natio
nal peculiarities o f form, which are often lost in translation) was ignored by both the propagandist, and the reader. Necessary parallels with Russian life, Russian conditions and challenges in the social struggle were found out first o f all.” (Травушкин 1977: 12) Thus the vulgar sociological method o f literary criticism had its roots in the pre-revolutionary period and was not something innovative in Soviet
144 NESMELOVA
literary criticism. The third aspect of the problem became obvious during the first post-revolutionary years: a special attitude o f the new Soviet Russia to that powerful energy which America as a state embodied. And, certainly, it fully related to literature and culture of the USA.
It seems that the perception of Americanism and American culture is obviously a point o f argument. But the idea o f the similarity of many national characteristics of Russian and American cultures makes its way sometimes against the desire o f the critics themselves. And this tendency originates in pre-revolutionary literary criticism. And, certainly, the main point that attracts Russian and Soviet researchers, even if they do not want to admit it, is the energy, youth and self- assurance of Americans on the one hand, and their experiment with art forms on the other. That means that the experience of the first Soviet years was rather close to revolutionary creation and the art of avan
gardism. It is obvious from the choice of priority objects for the analysis: Soviet critics followed Soviet readers in their love for J.
London and O. Henry whose works were full of adventures and charm and pathos connected with the development of a new land and the creation of new life on the one hand; and interest in art experiment, which was almost the same as political and social experiment, on the other. During the first period of Soviet American Studies only one monographic study appeared. And it was devoted not to some mature master o f realism, but the experimenter and innovator John Dos Passos. It was D os Passos (1934) — the book written by A. I.
Startsev, one of the first Soviet specialists in American literature, who, by the way, died this summer.
One more conflict arose in the 1930s between American New Humanism and its ideological and artistic reception by Russian scholars. O f course now it is already the fact of history, but never
theless the analysis o f the ideological polemics of the 1930s becomes useful during the process of realizing the ways of evolution of cultural interactions between America and Russia.
New Humanism was seen by S. Dinamov, A. Elistratova and A.
Startsev as the penetration o f fascist ideology into the sphere of culture and art. Probably, in some sense, it was the fear of self
recognition, and even some sort o f hysteria in this.
In 1930 in New York the book edited by Norman Foerster Humanism and America. Essays on the Outlook o f M odem Civiliza
tion was published. The reaction o f the Soviet critics to it was instant and so furiously negative that it continues to surprise even today’s reader of these articles who has already got used to the tone and peculiarities of the Soviet criticism o f the 1930s. The polemic about American humanism is rather important and indicative and charac
terizes one of the stages o f American Studies in Russia. It bears testimony to the ideological bent o f literary criticism in that period, the political reasons for purely literary estimations and the peculiari
ties of perception of literature and art. They do not suit the official framework of proletarian ideology and at the same time have dange
rous similarities and analogies.
The foreword o f the editors of the book is very important. It can be regarded as a kind of manifest of New Humanism, which gives an outline of the program of this school in American criticism, the history of its formation and interaction of modem humanism with the humanistic thought o f the past, and the argument with its opponents in the USA. In the essays that followed, the theory o f Humanism became clearer and more concrete in its various aspects. New Humanist theory was against Naturalism with its tendency to see only the animal instincts in the human being. The discussion was held on the philo
sophical and aesthetic levels. Naturalism did not suit humanists because of its simplified ideas about human nature and mission. The responsibility for his actions was removed from a person and assigned to the society, environment, some biological factors, etc. This point of view was based on the philosophy o f Determinism. Humanists did not accept cruelty, violence and the basic instincts o f savages in literature.
They put hope, self-identification and dignity of a person and the idea of order and discipline in opposition to these. That is why it was necessary to lift Humanism onto a new level. Its principles of measure and discipline could resist the chaos o f animal instincts into which mankind had almost sunk due to Naturalism and the philosophy o f H.
Spencer. The necessity to revitalize the humanist ideas was proved to be built “by contradiction”. First the enemies o f Humanism were defined, and accusations were levelled at them, and then the opposite statements were declared in reply. “Romantics, realists and skeptics are daily attacking us on four fronts: humanists, it is held, are academic, un-American, reactionary and puritan. ... Now, humanism, does wish to emphasize discipline, whenever, as to-day, it needs to be emphasized. ... Humanism conceives that the power of restraint is
146 NESM ELOVA
peculiarly human, and that those who throw down the reins are simply abandoning their humanity to the course o f animal life or the
peculiarly human, and that those who throw down the reins are simply abandoning their humanity to the course o f animal life or the